Scholarlink

Background <p>Comparing transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is crucial for cardiac assessment. This study aims to clarify their comparability in a large population sample.</p> Methods <p>CMR and two- (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) TTE were used to quantify left and right heart dimensions in participants of the Hamburg City Health Study. Intertechnique agreement was evaluated using Bland–Altman analyses, Pearson correlation coefficients, and Cohen’s Kappa.</p> Results <p>Data from 2126 participants (median age 67 [IQR: 59–72] years, 897 (42.2%) female) were analyzed. Left ventricular (LV) diastolic volumes were similar (CMR: 117.0 [96.2, 138.0] ml, 2D-TTE: 111.8 [93.6, 134.3] ml, r = 0.7, p &lt; 0.001), while systolic volumes were lower with CMR (CMR: 36.0 [26.9, 46.0] ml, 2D-TTE: 46.7 [37.9, 57.5] ml, r = 0.67, p &lt; 0.001). CMR LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was 10% higher than 2D-TTE (CMR = 69.0 [64.0, 74.0]%, 2D-TTE = 58.3 [55.5, 61.7]%, p &lt; 0.001; r = 0.40, p &lt; 0.001). Left atrial volumes correlated moderately with low bias (CMR: 53.0 [40.0, 68.0] ml, 2D-TTE: 51.6 [41.5, 64.0] ml, r = 0.63, p &lt; 0.001). LV mass showed good correlation but was higher using 2D-TTE (r = 0.74, p &lt; 0.001). Right ventricular (RV) volumes showed the largest differences, with CMR demonstrating lower interobserver variability (ICC = 0.97 vs. 0.61 for 2D-TTE) and markedly larger volumes (RVEDV mean bias = 74.8&#xa0;ml, r = 0.50, p &lt; 0.001).</p> Conclusion <p>In a large general population, CMR quantifies cardiac function and dimensions more reliably than TTE. Both modalities provide significantly different absolute values, limiting intertechnique transferability.</p> Trial registration <p>Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrial.gov, registration number: NCT03934957, registration date: 04/01/2019, <a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03934957">https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03934957</a>.</p> Graphical abstract <p>Central Illustration. Abbreviations: <i>2D</i> 2-dimensional, <i>3D</i> 3-dimensional, <i>LASV</i> left atrial systolic volume, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, <i>LVESV</i> left ventricular end-systolic volume, <i>LVEDV</i> left ventricular end-diastolic volume, <i>LV</i> mass = left ventricular mass, <i>RVEF</i> right ventricular ejection fraction.</p> <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Head-to-head comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and transthoracic echocardiography in the general population (MATCH)

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月12日

查看全文
  • Jan-Per Wenzel,
  • Jan-Niklas Albrecht,
  • Betül Toprak,
  • Elina Petersen,
  • Julius Nikorowitsch,
  • Ersin Cavus,
  • Charlotte Jahnke,
  • Katharina Alina Riedl,
  • Gerhard Adam,
  • Raphael Twerenbold,
  • Stefan Blankenberg,
  • Paulus Kirchhof,
  • Gunnar Lund,
  • Enver Tahir,
  • Kai Müllerleile,
  • Ulf K. Radunski

摘要

Background

Comparing transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is crucial for cardiac assessment. This study aims to clarify their comparability in a large population sample.

Methods

CMR and two- (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) TTE were used to quantify left and right heart dimensions in participants of the Hamburg City Health Study. Intertechnique agreement was evaluated using Bland–Altman analyses, Pearson correlation coefficients, and Cohen’s Kappa.

Results

Data from 2126 participants (median age 67 [IQR: 59–72] years, 897 (42.2%) female) were analyzed. Left ventricular (LV) diastolic volumes were similar (CMR: 117.0 [96.2, 138.0] ml, 2D-TTE: 111.8 [93.6, 134.3] ml, r = 0.7, p < 0.001), while systolic volumes were lower with CMR (CMR: 36.0 [26.9, 46.0] ml, 2D-TTE: 46.7 [37.9, 57.5] ml, r = 0.67, p < 0.001). CMR LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was 10% higher than 2D-TTE (CMR = 69.0 [64.0, 74.0]%, 2D-TTE = 58.3 [55.5, 61.7]%, p < 0.001; r = 0.40, p < 0.001). Left atrial volumes correlated moderately with low bias (CMR: 53.0 [40.0, 68.0] ml, 2D-TTE: 51.6 [41.5, 64.0] ml, r = 0.63, p < 0.001). LV mass showed good correlation but was higher using 2D-TTE (r = 0.74, p < 0.001). Right ventricular (RV) volumes showed the largest differences, with CMR demonstrating lower interobserver variability (ICC = 0.97 vs. 0.61 for 2D-TTE) and markedly larger volumes (RVEDV mean bias = 74.8 ml, r = 0.50, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In a large general population, CMR quantifies cardiac function and dimensions more reliably than TTE. Both modalities provide significantly different absolute values, limiting intertechnique transferability.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrial.gov, registration number: NCT03934957, registration date: 04/01/2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03934957.

Graphical abstract

Central Illustration. Abbreviations: 2D 2-dimensional, 3D 3-dimensional, LASV left atrial systolic volume, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, LVESV left ventricular end-systolic volume, LVEDV left ventricular end-diastolic volume, LV mass = left ventricular mass, RVEF right ventricular ejection fraction.