Dataset Information

Can an Offsite Expert Remotely Evaluate the Visual Estimation of Ejection Fraction via a Social Network Video Call?

ABSTRACT: We aimed to investigate whether an offsite expert could effectively evaluate visually estimated ejection fraction (EF) while watching and guiding the echocardiographic procedure of an onsite novice practitioner using a social network video call. Sixty patients presenting to the intensive care unit and requiring echocardiography between October and November 2016 were included. Sixty novice sonographers without any previous experience of echocardiography participated. Prior to the procedure, the onsite cardiologist completed the echocardiography and determined the EF using the modified Simpson's method (reference value). Then, the novice practitioner performed the echocardiography again with the offsite expert's guidance via a social network video call. The EF was visually estimated by the offsite expert while watching the ultrasound video on the smartphone display. Spearman's rank correlation and Bland-Altman plot analysis were conducted to assess the agreement between the two methods. There was excellent agreement between the two methods, with a correlation coefficient of 0.94 (p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman plot showed that the average bias was -3.05, and the limit of agreement (-10.3 to 4.2) was narrow. The offsite expert was able to perform an accurate visual estimation of ejection fraction remotely via a social network video call by mentoring the onsite novice sonographer. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02960685.

SUBMITTER: Kim C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5681472 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can an Offsite Expert Remotely Evaluate the Visual Estimation of Ejection Fraction via a Social Network Video Call?

Kim Changsun C Hur Jin J Kang Bo Seung BS Choi Hyuk Joong HJ Shin Jeong-Hun JH Kim Tae-Hyung TH Chung Jae Ho JH

Journal of digital imaging 20171201 6

We aimed to investigate whether an offsite expert could effectively evaluate visually estimated ejection fraction (EF) while watching and guiding the echocardiographic procedure of an onsite novice practitioner using a social network video call. Sixty patients presenting to the intensive care unit and requiring echocardiography between October and November 2016 were included. Sixty novice sonographers without any previous experience of echocardiography participated. Prior to the procedure, the o ...[more]

PMID: 28484920

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of dynamic changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in an all-comer heart failure (HF) population with reduced EF (HFrEF, EF < 40%). We sought to identify independent factors related to improvement in EF and to identify risk factors for increased risk of CV events in the subgroups of improved EF (iEF) and non-improved EF (niEF), respecively.Methods and resultsThis is a retrospective sub-analysis from the REDEAL HF trial, which included consecutive patients with chronic HF who were hospitalized from July 2009 to December 2017. Baseline and follow-up echocardiography data (interval ≥12 months) of 573 consecutive patients with HFrEF were analysed. iEF was defined as absolute improvement in EF ≥ 10% and follow-up EF over 40%. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, CV hospitalization, or appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy for ventricular arrhythmia. EF improved in 37.2% of patients with HFrEF during follow-up (median period of 17 months). iEF was independently associated with shorter HF duration (>4 vs. ≤4 years, odd ratio [OR] = 0.477, 95% CI 0.305-0.745), no coronary artery disease (CAD vs. no CAD, OR = 0.583, 95% CI 0.396-0.858), and no ICD implantation (ICD vs. no ICD, OR = 0.341, 95% CI 0.228-0.511). Compared with niEF, iEF was significantly and independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (22.1% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.019; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.674, 95% CI 0.469-0.968), lower CV mortality (8.9% vs. 16.1%, P = 0.015; HR = 0.539, 95% CI 0.317-0.916), and lower CV events risk (27.2% vs. 49.2%, P < 0.001; HR 0.519, 95% CI 0.381-0.708), after adjustment for age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors. Hypertension (HR = 2.452, P = 0.032) and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP >1153 pg/mL, HR = 4.372, P < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for CV events in the iEF subgroup. ICD implantation (HR = 1.533, P = 0.011), elevated NT-proBNP (HR = 1.626, P = 0.018), increased left atrial volume index (HR = 1.461, P = 0.021), reduced lateral mitral annular plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.478, P = 0.025), and reduced tricuspid plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.491, P = 0.039) were identified as risk factors for CV events in the niEF subgroup.ConclusionsImprovement in EF is independently related to the longer survival and lower CV related mortality and hospitalization rate of HFrEF. Elevated baseline NT-proBNP is identified as the strongest prognostic factor associated with increased CV events risk in HFrEF patients both with and without improved EF, regardless of age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors.

Project description:Aims: Evidence-based guidelines for heart failure management depend mainly on current left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, fewer studies have examined the impact of prior LVEF. Patients may enter the heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) category when heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) deteriorates or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves. In this study, we examined the association between change in LVEF and adverse outcomes. Methods: HFmrEF patients with at least two or more echocardiograms 3 months apart at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between September 1, 2015 and November 30, 2019 were identified. According to the prior LVEF, the subjects were divided into improved group (prior LVEF < 40%), stable group (prior LVEF between 40 and 50%), and deteriorated group (prior LVEF ≥ 50%). The primary outcomes were cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and composite event of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization. Results: A total of 1,168 HFmrEF patients (67.04% male, mean age 63.60 ± 12.18 years) were included. The percentages of improved, stable, and deteriorated group were 310 (26.54%), 334 (28.60%), and 524 (44.86%), respectively. After a period of follow-up, 208 patients (17.81%) died and 500 patients met the composite endpoint. The rates of all-cause mortality were 35 (11.29%), 55 (16.47%), and 118 (22.52%), and the composite outcome was 102 (32.90%), 145 (43.41%), and 253 (48.28%) for the improved, stable, and deteriorated groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis showed that the deterioration group had higher risk of cardiovascular death (HR: 1.707, 95% CI: 1.064-2.739, P = 0.027), all-cause death (HR 1.948, 95% CI 1.335-2.840, P = 0.001), and composite outcome (HR 1.379, 95% CI 1.096-1.736, P = 0.006) compared to the improvement group. The association still remained significant after fully adjusted for both all-cause mortality (HR = 1.899, 95% CI 1.247-2.893, P = 0.003) and composite outcome (HR: 1.324, 95% CI: 1.020-1.718, P = 0.035). Conclusion: HFmrEF patients are heterogeneous with three different subsets identified, each with different outcomes. Strategies for managing HFmrEF should include previously measured LVEF to allow stratification based on direction changes in LVEF to better optimize treatment.

Project description:AimsHeart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is associated with a favourable prognosis compared with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). We assessed whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory can be used to identify groups of patients with HFmrEF who have different clinical outcomes in a large retrospective study of patients with serial imaging.Methods and resultsPatients with HF and ≥2 echocardiograms performed ≥6 months apart were included if the LVEF measured 40-49% on the second study. Patients were classified as HFmrEF-Increasing if LVEF had increased ≥10% (n = 450), HFmrEF-Decreasing if LVEF had decreased ≥10% (n = 512), or HFmrEF-Stable if they did not meet other criteria (n = 389). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization after the second echocardiogram. Associations with time to first event were assessed with multivariable Cox analyses adjusted for age, co-morbidities, and medications. In total, 1351 patients with HFmrEF (median age 74, 64.2% male) were included with 28.8% exhibiting stable LVEF. During median follow-up of 15.3 months, the composite outcome occurred in 811 patients. During follow-up, patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.88, P < 0.001] compared with HFmrEF-Stable. Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing were more likely to experience the composite outcome in unadjusted analyses (unadjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40, P = 0.040) but not adjusted analyses (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37, P = 0.092). Associations with death or HF hospitalizations were similar (HFmrEF-Increasing: adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.005; HFmrEF-Decreasing: adjusted HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.44, P = 0.044). Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing had a similar risk of the composite outcome as patients with HF with reduced EF (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.20, P = 0.670). Patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the composite outcome compared with patients with HF with preserved EF (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAmongst patients with HFmrEF, those exhibiting positive LVEF trajectory were less likely to experience adverse outcomes after correcting for important confounders including medical therapy. Categorizing HFmrEF patients based on LVEF trajectory provides meaningful clinical information and may assist clinicians with management decisions.

Project description:Evidence-based therapies for heart failure (HF) differ significantly according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, few data are available on the phenotype and prognosis of patients with HF with midrange LVEF of 40% to 55%, and the impact of recovered systolic function on the clinical features, functional capacity, and outcomes of this population is not known.We studied 944 patients with HF who underwent clinically indicated cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The study population was categorized according to LVEF as follows: HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF; LVEF<40%; n=620); HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction (LVEF was consistent between 40% and 55%; n=107); HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction (LVEF, 40%-55% but previous LVEF<40%; n=170); and HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF; LVEF>55%; n=47). HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction and HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction had similar clinical characteristics, which were intermediate between those of HFrEF and HFpEF, and comparable values of predicted peak oxygen consumption and minute-ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope, which were better than HFrEF and similar to HFpEF. After a median of 4.4 (2.9-5.7) years, there were 253 composite events (death, left ventricular assistant device implantation, or transplantation). In multivariable Cox-regression analysis, HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction had lower risk of composite events than HFrEF (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.47) and HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.67), and similar prognosis when compared with HFpEF. In contrast, HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction tended to show intermediate risk of outcomes in comparison with HFpEF and HFrEF, albeit not reaching statistical significance in fully adjusted analyses.Patients with HF with midrange LVEF demonstrate a distinct clinical profile from HFpEF and HFrEF patients, with objective measures of functional capacity similar to HFpEF. Within the midrange LVEF HF population, recovered systolic function is a marker of more favorable prognosis.

Dataset Information

Can an Offsite Expert Remotely Evaluate the Visual Estimation of Ejection Fraction via a Social Network Video Call?

Publications

Can an Offsite Expert Remotely Evaluate the Visual Estimation of Ejection Fraction via a Social Network Video Call?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets