Three methods for evaluation of left atrial volume

Panupong Jiamsripong, Tadaaki Honda, Christina S. Reuss, R. Todd Hurst, Hari P Chaliki, Diane E. Grill, Stephen L. Schneck, Rochelle Tyler, Bijoy K. Khandheria, Steven Jay Lester

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

61 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: To compare and contrast 3 different echocardiographic methods used to measure left atrial (LA) volume: biplane area length (AL), biplane modified Simpson (SIMP), and prolate ellipse (PE) methods. Methods and results: A review of consecutive patients who presented to our outpatient echocardiography laboratory for a resting transthoracic study between April 2006 and May 2006 was performed. Echocardiograms were reexamined and LA volume measured using the AL, SIMP, and PE methods. Of 102 consecutive patients evaluated, 97 had a measure of LA volume using all 3 methods. A significant difference in the measurement of mean ± SD LA volume was noted among the 3 different methods: 37 ± 16 mL/m2 for AL, 34 ± 14 mL/m2 for SIMP, and 27 ± 12 mL/m2 for PE. The PE method yielded routinely smaller values compared with either the AL or SIMP method (P < 0.001). Differences increased with increased LA volume. The SIMP method derived consistently smaller (<5 mL/m2) values than those of the AL method, consistent across the full range of LA volumes. Conclusion: Significant differences exist among these 3 commonly used methods for measuring LA volume. Standardization of the measurement of LA volume is recommended.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)351-355
Number of pages5
JournalEuropean Journal of Echocardiography
Volume9
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2008

Fingerprint

Phosmet
Echocardiography
Outpatients

Keywords

  • Cardiac volume
  • Echocardiography
  • Heart atria

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Three methods for evaluation of left atrial volume. / Jiamsripong, Panupong; Honda, Tadaaki; Reuss, Christina S.; Hurst, R. Todd; Chaliki, Hari P; Grill, Diane E.; Schneck, Stephen L.; Tyler, Rochelle; Khandheria, Bijoy K.; Lester, Steven Jay.

In: European Journal of Echocardiography, Vol. 9, No. 3, 05.2008, p. 351-355.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jiamsripong, P, Honda, T, Reuss, CS, Hurst, RT, Chaliki, HP, Grill, DE, Schneck, SL, Tyler, R, Khandheria, BK & Lester, SJ 2008, 'Three methods for evaluation of left atrial volume', European Journal of Echocardiography, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 351-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euje.2007.05.004
Jiamsripong, Panupong ; Honda, Tadaaki ; Reuss, Christina S. ; Hurst, R. Todd ; Chaliki, Hari P ; Grill, Diane E. ; Schneck, Stephen L. ; Tyler, Rochelle ; Khandheria, Bijoy K. ; Lester, Steven Jay. / Three methods for evaluation of left atrial volume. In: European Journal of Echocardiography. 2008 ; Vol. 9, No. 3. pp. 351-355.
@article{72304ddba6954b62877c941f5c44d30e,
title = "Three methods for evaluation of left atrial volume",
abstract = "Aim: To compare and contrast 3 different echocardiographic methods used to measure left atrial (LA) volume: biplane area length (AL), biplane modified Simpson (SIMP), and prolate ellipse (PE) methods. Methods and results: A review of consecutive patients who presented to our outpatient echocardiography laboratory for a resting transthoracic study between April 2006 and May 2006 was performed. Echocardiograms were reexamined and LA volume measured using the AL, SIMP, and PE methods. Of 102 consecutive patients evaluated, 97 had a measure of LA volume using all 3 methods. A significant difference in the measurement of mean ± SD LA volume was noted among the 3 different methods: 37 ± 16 mL/m2 for AL, 34 ± 14 mL/m2 for SIMP, and 27 ± 12 mL/m2 for PE. The PE method yielded routinely smaller values compared with either the AL or SIMP method (P < 0.001). Differences increased with increased LA volume. The SIMP method derived consistently smaller (<5 mL/m2) values than those of the AL method, consistent across the full range of LA volumes. Conclusion: Significant differences exist among these 3 commonly used methods for measuring LA volume. Standardization of the measurement of LA volume is recommended.",
keywords = "Cardiac volume, Echocardiography, Heart atria",
author = "Panupong Jiamsripong and Tadaaki Honda and Reuss, {Christina S.} and Hurst, {R. Todd} and Chaliki, {Hari P} and Grill, {Diane E.} and Schneck, {Stephen L.} and Rochelle Tyler and Khandheria, {Bijoy K.} and Lester, {Steven Jay}",
year = "2008",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.euje.2007.05.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "351--355",
journal = "European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging",
issn = "2047-2404",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Three methods for evaluation of left atrial volume

AU - Jiamsripong, Panupong

AU - Honda, Tadaaki

AU - Reuss, Christina S.

AU - Hurst, R. Todd

AU - Chaliki, Hari P

AU - Grill, Diane E.

AU - Schneck, Stephen L.

AU - Tyler, Rochelle

AU - Khandheria, Bijoy K.

AU - Lester, Steven Jay

PY - 2008/5

Y1 - 2008/5

N2 - Aim: To compare and contrast 3 different echocardiographic methods used to measure left atrial (LA) volume: biplane area length (AL), biplane modified Simpson (SIMP), and prolate ellipse (PE) methods. Methods and results: A review of consecutive patients who presented to our outpatient echocardiography laboratory for a resting transthoracic study between April 2006 and May 2006 was performed. Echocardiograms were reexamined and LA volume measured using the AL, SIMP, and PE methods. Of 102 consecutive patients evaluated, 97 had a measure of LA volume using all 3 methods. A significant difference in the measurement of mean ± SD LA volume was noted among the 3 different methods: 37 ± 16 mL/m2 for AL, 34 ± 14 mL/m2 for SIMP, and 27 ± 12 mL/m2 for PE. The PE method yielded routinely smaller values compared with either the AL or SIMP method (P < 0.001). Differences increased with increased LA volume. The SIMP method derived consistently smaller (<5 mL/m2) values than those of the AL method, consistent across the full range of LA volumes. Conclusion: Significant differences exist among these 3 commonly used methods for measuring LA volume. Standardization of the measurement of LA volume is recommended.

AB - Aim: To compare and contrast 3 different echocardiographic methods used to measure left atrial (LA) volume: biplane area length (AL), biplane modified Simpson (SIMP), and prolate ellipse (PE) methods. Methods and results: A review of consecutive patients who presented to our outpatient echocardiography laboratory for a resting transthoracic study between April 2006 and May 2006 was performed. Echocardiograms were reexamined and LA volume measured using the AL, SIMP, and PE methods. Of 102 consecutive patients evaluated, 97 had a measure of LA volume using all 3 methods. A significant difference in the measurement of mean ± SD LA volume was noted among the 3 different methods: 37 ± 16 mL/m2 for AL, 34 ± 14 mL/m2 for SIMP, and 27 ± 12 mL/m2 for PE. The PE method yielded routinely smaller values compared with either the AL or SIMP method (P < 0.001). Differences increased with increased LA volume. The SIMP method derived consistently smaller (<5 mL/m2) values than those of the AL method, consistent across the full range of LA volumes. Conclusion: Significant differences exist among these 3 commonly used methods for measuring LA volume. Standardization of the measurement of LA volume is recommended.

KW - Cardiac volume

KW - Echocardiography

KW - Heart atria

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=43449089499&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=43449089499&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.euje.2007.05.004

DO - 10.1016/j.euje.2007.05.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 17658300

AN - SCOPUS:43449089499

VL - 9

SP - 351

EP - 355

JO - European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging

JF - European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging

SN - 2047-2404

IS - 3

ER -