|Title||Comparison of m-mode echocardiographic left ventricular mass measured using digital and strip chart readings: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.|
|Publication Type||Journal Article|
|Year of Publication||2003|
|Authors||Arnett DK, Skelton TN, Liebson PR, Benjamin E, Hutchinson RG|
|Date Published||2003 Jun 27|
|Keywords||Cohort Studies, Comorbidity, Echocardiography, Female, Humans, Hypertrophy, Left Ventricular, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Male, Middle Aged, Observer Variation, Organ Size, Prevalence, Reproducibility of Results, Risk Assessment, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, United States, Ventricular Dysfunction, Left|
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological and clinical studies frequently use echocardiography to measure LV wall thicknesses and chamber dimension for estimating quantitative measures of LV mass. While echocardiographic M-mode LV images have traditionally been measured using hand-held calipers and strip-chart paper tracings, digitized M-mode LV image measurements made directly on the computer screen using electronic calipers have become standard practice. We sought to determine if systematic differences in LV mass occur between the two methods by comparing LV mass measured from simultaneous M-mode strip chart recordings and digitized recordings.
METHODS: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study applied the latter method. To determine if systematic differences in LV mass occur between the two methods, LV mass was measured from simultaneous M-mode strip chart recordings and digitized recordings.
RESULTS: We found no difference in LV mass (p > .25) and a strong correlation in LV mass between the two methods (r = 0.97). Neither age, sex, nor hypertension status affected the correlation of LV mass between the two methods.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that digital estimates of LV mass provide unbiased estimates comparable to the strip-chart method.
|Alternate Journal||Cardiovasc Ultrasound|
|PubMed Central ID||PMC198281|