A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Left Ventricular End Diastolic Volume and Ejection Fraction Calculation: Correlation between Three Echocardiographic Methods. | LitMetric

Background: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and end diastolic volume (EDV) are measured using Simpson's biplane (SB), 3-dimensional method (3DE), and speckle tracking (STE). Comparisons between methods in routine practice are limited. Our purpose was to compare and to determine the correlations between these three methods in clinical setting.

Methods: LVEF and EDV were measured by three methods in 474 consecutive patients and compared using multiple Bland-Altman (BA) plots. The correlations (R) between methods were calculated.

Results: Median (IQR) LVEF_SB, LVEF_STE, and LVEF_3DE were 63.0% (60-69)%, 61% (57-65)%, and 62% (57-68)%. Median (IQR) EDV_SB, EDV_STE, and EDV_3DE were 85 ml (71-106) ml, 82 ml (69-100) ml, and 73 ml (59-89) ml. R between LVEF_SB and LVEF_3DE was 0.65 when echogenicity was good and 0.43 when poor. R for EDV_SB and EDV_3DE was 0.75 when echogenicity was good and 0.45 when poor. On BA analysis, biases were acceptable (<3.5% for LVEF) but limits of agreement (LOA) were large: 95% of the differences were between -15.4% and +18.8% for LVEF as evaluated by SB in comparison with 3DE, with a bias of 1.7%. In the comparison EDV_SB and EDV_3DE, the bias was 14 ml and the LOA were between -24 ml and +53 ml. On linear regressions, LVEF_3DE = 17.92 + 0.69 LVEF_SB and EDV_3DE = 18.94 + 0.63 EDV_SB.

Conclusions: The three methods were feasible and led to acceptable bias but large LOA. Although these methods are not interchangeable, our results allow 3DE value prediction from SB, the most commonly used method.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7064836PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8076582DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

left ventricular
8
diastolic volume
8
ejection fraction
8
edv measured
8
three methods
8
median iqr
8
echogenicity good
8
methods
5
ventricular diastolic
4
volume ejection
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!