• Users Online: 77
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 7

Left ventricular volume and function assessment: a comparison study between echocardiography and ventriculography

1 Atherosclerosis Prevention Research Center, School of Medicine, Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IR Iran
2 Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IR Iran

Correspondence Address:
Alireza Abdollahi
Atherosclerosis Prevention Research Center, School of Medicine, Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad
IR Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.5812/acvi.20737

Rights and Permissions

Background: The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measurement is a common tool for evaluating the LV systolic function. The application of the global longitudinal systolic strain (GLS) parameter in the assessment of the myocardial function has also received special attention recently. Objectives: This study was aimed at comparing the LVEF and LV volumes obtained by the two methods of catheterization and two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography (available in our institution) and assessing the correlation between the LVEF and the GLS. Patients and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 45 patients were recruited from coronary angiography candidates. The patients underwent echocardiography immediately before catheterization. The LVEF and LV volumes were measured via echocardiography using the apical four- and two chamber-views. The GLS was calculated through the automated functional imaging algorithm. Left ventriculography was performed by calculating the LVEF in the right and left oblique views. Results: The LVEF values obtained by the two methods of ventriculography and echocardiography were not significantly different. The highest correlation regarding the echocardiographic LVEF was obtained in the angiographic right anterior oblique view (P < 0.001, r = 0.95). There was a good agreement as regards the biplane LVEF between 2D echocardiography and ventriculography (-0.5 ± 13.27; CI of 95%). The GLS showed a signi.cant correlation with the estimated EF in both methods, the highest being with the Biplane Simpson method (r = -0.84; P < 0.001). Linear regression was used to obtain the formula for estimating the 2D LVEF from the GLS [LVEF = 2.53 (GLS) + 10.48]. The GLS values ≤ -11.7 and ≥ -21.7% were consistent with normal and severe global LV systolic dysfunction, respectively. The inter- and intra-observer agreement was more evident in the GLS measurement rather than in the LVEF. Conclusions: Despite the widespread use of 2D LVEF and its good agreement with ventriculography, strain analysis seems to be more reliable as a quantitative tool for ventricular assessment.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded80    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal