Comparison of four echocardiographic methods to determine left atrial size in dogs
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Comparison of four echocardiographic methods to determine left atrial size in dogs. / Höllmer, Miriam; Willesen, Jakob; Tolver, Anders; Koch, Jørgen.
In: Journal of Veterinary Cardiology, Vol. 18, No. 2, 18.03.2016, p. 137–145.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of four echocardiographic methods to determine left atrial size in dogs
AU - Höllmer, Miriam
AU - Willesen, Jakob
AU - Tolver, Anders
AU - Koch, Jørgen
N1 - Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/3/18
Y1 - 2016/3/18
N2 - OBJECTIVES: To compare a linear and three volume-based two-dimensional echocardiographic methods for measuring LA size: left atrium to aorta ratio (LA/Ao ratio), biplane area-length, biplane modified Simpson and monoplane area-length.ANIMALS: One hundred seventy-six client-owned dogs of different breeds, 88 healthy dogs and 88 dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease of different disease severity.METHODS: The left apical four- and two-chamber views were used to measure LA volumes. The right parasternal short-axis view at the level of the heart base was used to measure the LA/Ao ratio.RESULTS: The biplane area-length method yielded 2.8% larger values than those of the biplane modified Simpson method, consistent across the full range of LA volumes. The monoplane area-length method derived on average 5.8% larger values of LA volume than the biplane area-length method. The difference between these two methods was most pronounced at larger LA volumes. The relation between the LA/Ao ratio and LA volume was curvilinear and with increasing LA size these two methods derived very dissimilar values.CONCLUSIONS: All methods showed good feasibility and reproducibility, with the volume-based methods having the most favourable intra- and inter-observer variabilities. The LA/Ao ratio underestimates at higher values of LA size compared to the biplane area-length method. LA volume methods may be superior to the LA/Ao ratio in quantification of LA size. The biplane area-length method and biplane modified Simpson method can be used interchangeably. The monoplane area-length measurement may be used as a quick and reliable method for assessment of LA size in clinical practice.
AB - OBJECTIVES: To compare a linear and three volume-based two-dimensional echocardiographic methods for measuring LA size: left atrium to aorta ratio (LA/Ao ratio), biplane area-length, biplane modified Simpson and monoplane area-length.ANIMALS: One hundred seventy-six client-owned dogs of different breeds, 88 healthy dogs and 88 dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease of different disease severity.METHODS: The left apical four- and two-chamber views were used to measure LA volumes. The right parasternal short-axis view at the level of the heart base was used to measure the LA/Ao ratio.RESULTS: The biplane area-length method yielded 2.8% larger values than those of the biplane modified Simpson method, consistent across the full range of LA volumes. The monoplane area-length method derived on average 5.8% larger values of LA volume than the biplane area-length method. The difference between these two methods was most pronounced at larger LA volumes. The relation between the LA/Ao ratio and LA volume was curvilinear and with increasing LA size these two methods derived very dissimilar values.CONCLUSIONS: All methods showed good feasibility and reproducibility, with the volume-based methods having the most favourable intra- and inter-observer variabilities. The LA/Ao ratio underestimates at higher values of LA size compared to the biplane area-length method. LA volume methods may be superior to the LA/Ao ratio in quantification of LA size. The biplane area-length method and biplane modified Simpson method can be used interchangeably. The monoplane area-length measurement may be used as a quick and reliable method for assessment of LA size in clinical practice.
U2 - 10.1016/j.jvc.2016.02.001
DO - 10.1016/j.jvc.2016.02.001
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 27009978
VL - 18
SP - 137
EP - 145
JO - Journal of Veterinary Cardiology
JF - Journal of Veterinary Cardiology
SN - 1760-2734
IS - 2
ER -
ID: 160606351