Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular volumes: a comparison of different methods in athletes

BackgroundCardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) is considered the gold standard for the assessment of left ventricular (LV) systolic function. However, discrepancies have been reported in the literature between LV volumes assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cMRI. The objective of this study was to analyze the differences in LV volumes between different echocardiographic techniques and cMRI.Methods and resultsIn 64 male athletes (21.1 +/- 4.9 years), LV volumes were measured by TTE using the following methods: Doppler echocardiography, anatomical M-Mode, biplane/triplane planimetry and 3D volumetry. In addition, LV end-diastolic (LVEDV), end-systolic (LVESV), and stroke volumes (LVSV) were assessed in 11 athletes by both TTE and cMRI. There was no significant difference between LVEDV and LVESV determined by biplane/triplane planimetry and 3D volumetry. LVEDV and LVESV measured by M-Mode were significantly lower compared to 3D volumetry. LVSV determined by Doppler with 3D planimetry of LV outflow tract was significantly higher than 2D planimetry and 3D volumetry, whereas none of the planimetric or volumetric methods for determining LVSV differed significantly. There were no significant differences for LVEDV, LVESV, LVSV and LVEF between cMRI and TTE determined by biplane planimetry in the subgroup of 11 athletes.ConclusionThe choice of echocardiographic method used has an impact on LVSV in athletes, so the LVSV should always be checked for plausibility. The same echocardiographic method should be used to assess LVSV at follow-ups to ensure good comparability. The data suggest that biplane LV planimetry by TTE is not inferior to cMRI.