TY - JOUR
T1 - Interpretation of echocardiographic measurements
T2 - A call for standardization
AU - Vasan, Ramachandran S.
AU - Levy, Daniel
AU - Larson, Martin G.
AU - Benjamin, Emelia J.
N1 - Funding Information:
From the ONotional Hemi, lung, and Blood Institute’s Frominghom Heart Study; the bDivisions of Cardiology and Clinical Epidemiology, Beth Israel Hospltol; the <Cardiology Section and aDeportment of Preventive Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine; and the bNotional Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Supported in port by NIH/NHlBI contract NOCK-38038 and NINDS grant 2. ROI-NSI 7950 I 1. Dr Vosan’s research fellowship was mode possible by o grant from Merck 8 Co, Inc. Submitted March 29, 1999; accepted July 29, 1999. Reprint requests: Romochondran S. Voson, MD, Frommghom Heart Study, 5 Thurber St, Framinghorn, MA 0 1702. Emoil: voson~rfram.nhlbi.nih.gov 0002.8703/2000/$12.00 + 0 4/l/101777
PY - 2000
Y1 - 2000
N2 - Background: Although echocardiography is used extensively in clinical medicine, guidelines for quantitative interpretation of echocardiographic measurements are unavailable. The goals of this investigation were to provide an overview of scientific standards for formulating reference values, with clinical chemistry used as a model, to evaluate published echocardiographic reference limits, to survey clinical echocardiography laboratories regarding their interpretation of echocardiographic measurements, and to provide recommendations for improving the interpretation and reporting of echocardiographic measurements. Methods and Results: We reviewed the original reports of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry on guidelines for formulating reference values. We obtained published reports on echocardiographic reference limits through searches of electronic databases supplemented by a manual search of relevant bibliographies. We also surveyed echocardiographic laboratories in 35 adult acute-care hospitals in Eastern Massachusetts. Studies on echocardiographic reference values were evaluated with the use of guidelines from clinical chemistry. Responses from the 29 participating echocardiographic laboratories were evaluated for their practice of quantitative echocardiographic interpretation. There is considerable heterogeneity in the echocardiographic reference values available in the literature. There is also a lack of agreement in the literature and among echocardiographers regarding the partitioning of reference values (by sex, ethnicity, or age), the anthropometric measure to be used for indexation, and the choice of cut-points for categorizing values within the abnormal range. Conclusions: We advocate that echocardiographic reference limits be standardized and a consensus generated regarding the partitioning of reference limits and the indexation of echocardiographic measurements. Such measures can aid in quantitative echocardiographic interpretation and render the results more scientific and consistent.
AB - Background: Although echocardiography is used extensively in clinical medicine, guidelines for quantitative interpretation of echocardiographic measurements are unavailable. The goals of this investigation were to provide an overview of scientific standards for formulating reference values, with clinical chemistry used as a model, to evaluate published echocardiographic reference limits, to survey clinical echocardiography laboratories regarding their interpretation of echocardiographic measurements, and to provide recommendations for improving the interpretation and reporting of echocardiographic measurements. Methods and Results: We reviewed the original reports of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry on guidelines for formulating reference values. We obtained published reports on echocardiographic reference limits through searches of electronic databases supplemented by a manual search of relevant bibliographies. We also surveyed echocardiographic laboratories in 35 adult acute-care hospitals in Eastern Massachusetts. Studies on echocardiographic reference values were evaluated with the use of guidelines from clinical chemistry. Responses from the 29 participating echocardiographic laboratories were evaluated for their practice of quantitative echocardiographic interpretation. There is considerable heterogeneity in the echocardiographic reference values available in the literature. There is also a lack of agreement in the literature and among echocardiographers regarding the partitioning of reference values (by sex, ethnicity, or age), the anthropometric measure to be used for indexation, and the choice of cut-points for categorizing values within the abnormal range. Conclusions: We advocate that echocardiographic reference limits be standardized and a consensus generated regarding the partitioning of reference limits and the indexation of echocardiographic measurements. Such measures can aid in quantitative echocardiographic interpretation and render the results more scientific and consistent.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034058222&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034058222&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0002-8703(00)90084-X
DO - 10.1016/S0002-8703(00)90084-X
M3 - Article
C2 - 10689255
AN - SCOPUS:0034058222
SN - 0002-8703
VL - 139
SP - 412
EP - 422
JO - American Heart Journal
JF - American Heart Journal
IS - 3
ER -