@article{GrebeMalzahnDonhauseretal.2020,
  author    = {Grebe, S{\"o}ren Jendrik and Malzahn, Uwe and Donhauser, Julian and Liu, Dan and Wanner, Christoph and Krane, Vera and Hammer, Fabian},
  title     = {Quantification of left ventricular mass by echocardiography compared to cardiac magnet resonance imaging in hemodialysis patients},
  series = {Cardiovascular Ultrasound},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {Cardiovascular Ultrasound},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12947-020-00217-y},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-229282},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Background: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), defined by the left ventricular mass index (LVMI), is highly prevalent in hemodialysis patients and a strong independent predictor of cardiovascular events. Compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), echocardiography tends to overestimate the LVMI. Here, we evaluate the diagnostic performance of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) compared to CMR regarding the assessment of LVMI in hemodialysis patients. Methods: TTR and CMR data for 95 hemodialysis patients who participated in the MiREnDa trial were analyzed. The LVMI was calculated by two-dimensional (2D) TTE-guided M-mode measurements employing the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) and Teichholz (Th) formulas, which were compared to the reference method, CMR. Results: LVH was present in 44\% of patients based on LVMI measured by CMR. LVMI measured by echocardiography correlated moderately with CMR, ASE: r = 0.44 (0.34-0.62); Th: r = 0.44 (0.32-0.62). Compared to CMR, both echocardiographic formulas overestimated LVMI (mean increment LVMI (ASE-CMR): 19.5 +/- 19.48 g/m(2),p < 0.001; mean increment LVMI (Th-CMR): 15.9 +/- 15.89 g/m(2),p < 0.001). We found greater LVMI overestimation in patients with LVH using the ASE formula compared to the Th formula. Stratification of patients into CMR LVMI quartiles showed a continuous decrease in increment LVMI with increasing CMR LVMI quartiles for the Th formula (p < 0.001) but not for the ASE formula (p = 0.772). Bland-Altman analysis showed that the Th formula had a constant bias independent of LVMI. Both methods had good discrimination ability for the detection of LVH (ROC-AUC: 0.819 (0.737-0.901) and 0.808 (0.723-0.892) for Th and ASE, respectively). Conclusions: The ASE and Th formulas overestimate LVMI in hemodialysis patients. However, the overestimation is less with the Th formula, particularly with increasing LVMI. The results suggest that the Th formula should be preferred for measurement of LVMI in chronic hemodialysis patients.},
  language  = {en}
}