JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 1992; 19:1213-1222
© 1992 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, M.
Right arrow Articles by DeMaria, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, M.
Right arrow Articles by DeMaria, A.

Value and limitations of transesophageal echocardiography in determination of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction

MD Smith, B MacPhail, MR Harrison, SJ Lenhoff, and AN DeMaria

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Several formulas exist for estimating left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction using conventional two-dimensional echocardiography from transthoracic views. Transesophageal imaging provides superior resolution of endocardial borders but employs slightly different scan planes. The estimation of left ventricular volumes by transesophageal echocardiography has not been validated in human patients. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction derived from transesophageal short-axis and four-chamber images with similar variables obtained from ventriculography. End-diastolic and end-systolic volumes and ejection fraction were calculated using modified Simpson's rule, area-length and diameter-length models in 36 patients undergoing left ventriculography. Measurements of left ventricular length were obtained from the transesophageal four-chamber view and areas and diameters were taken from short-axis scans at the mitral valve, papillary muscle and apex levels. Data from transesophageal echocardiographic calculations were compared with end-diastolic volume (mean 172 +/- 90 ml), end-systolic volume (mean 91 +/- 74 ml) and ejection fraction (mean 52 +/- 15%) from cineventriculography using linear regression analysis. The area-length method (r = 0.88) resulted in a slightly better correlation with left ventricular end-diastolic volume than did Simpson's rule (r = 0.85) or area-length (r = 0.84) formulas. For end-systolic volume, the three models yielded similar correlations: Simpson's rule (r = 0.94), area-length (r = 0.93) and diameter-length (r = 0.95). Each of the methods resulted in significant underestimation of diastolic and systolic volumes compared with values assessed with angiography (p less than 0.003). Ejection fraction was best predicted by using the Simpson's rule formula (r = 0.85) in comparison with area-length (r = 0.80) or diameter-length (r = 0.73) formulas. Measurements of left ventricular length by transesophageal echocardiography were smaller for systole (mean 5.7 +/- 1.6 cm) and diastole (mean 7.7 +/- 1.2 cm) than values by ventriculography (mean 9.2 +/- 1.4 and 8.1 +/- 1.6 cm, respectively; p less than 0.0001), suggesting that underestimation of the ventricular length is a major factor contributing to the smaller volumes obtained by transesophageal echocardiography. In conclusion, currently existing formulas can be applied to transesophageal images for predicting left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction. However, volumes obtained by these models are significantly smaller than those obtained with angiography, possibly because of foreshortening in the transesophageal four-chamber view.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
C. Charron, C. Fessenmeyer, C. Cosson, J.-X. Mazoit, J.-L. Hebert, D. Benhamou, and A. R. Edouard
The Influence of Tidal Volume on the Dynamic Variables of Fluid Responsiveness in Critically Ill Patients.
Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2006; 102(5): 1511 - 1517.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
J. Wang, M. Filipovic, A. Rudzitis, I. Michaux, K. Skarvan, P. Buser, A. Todorov, F. Bernet, and M. D. Seeberger
Transesophageal Echocardiography for Monitoring Segmental Wall Motion During Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2004; 99(4): 965 - 973.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ChestHome page
K. Klouche, M. H. Weil, S. Sun, W. Tang, H. P. Povoas, T. Kamohara, and J. Bisera
Evolution of the Stone Heart After Prolonged Cardiac Arrest*
Chest, September 1, 2002; 122(3): 1006 - 1011.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
SEMIN CARDIOTHORAC VASC ANESTHHome page
M. J. London
Ventricular Function and Myocardial Ischemia: Is Transesophageal Echocardiography a Good Monitor?
Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, March 1, 1997; 1(1): 61 - 70.
[PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
M. Pu, P. M. Vandervoort, B. P. Griffin, D. Y. Leung, W. J. Stewart, D. M. Cosgrove III, and J. D. Thomas
Quantification of Mitral Regurgitation by the Proximal Convergence Method Using Transesophageal Echocardiography : Clinical Validation of a Geometric Correction for Proximal Flow Constraint
Circulation, October 15, 1995; 92(8): 2169 - 2177.
[Abstract] [Full Text]




HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 1992 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.