Hemodynamics, fluids & transfusion
Automated and reference methods for the calculation of left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral or ejection fraction by non-cardiologists: a systematic review on the agreement of the two methods
Authors' conclusion
We found limited studies reporting the interchangeability of automated LVEF or VTI measurements versus a reference approach.
Study context
- Population
- Point-of-care echocardiography by non-cardiologists in non-cardiology settings8 studies
- Comparison
- Automated vs reference methods in non-cardiology settings
- Outcome
- Interchangeability (agreement) of automated vs reference LVEF and/or VTI measurements
Methodological detailsPubMed search; 4 studies automated-LVEF, 3 automated-VTI, 1 both
- PubMed search; 4 studies automated-LVEF, 3 automated-VTI, 1 both
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Agreement of automated vs reference measurements
- Automated-LVEF mean bias, experienced operators
- 0 to 2.9%
- Automated-LVEF mean bias, non-experienced operators
- 0% to −10.2%
- Automated-VTI mean bias
- - 1.7 cm and - 1.9 cm
- Automated-LVEF correlation, experienced operators
- 0.63 and 0.86
- Automated-LVEF correlation, non-experienced operators
- 0.56 and 0.81
- Automated-VTI correlation, experienced operators (1 study)
- 0.86
- Automated-VTI correlation, non-experienced operators (1 study)
- 0.79
Further pooled results
Feasibility of automated measurements
- Feasibility, when reported
- 78.4 to 93.3%
Original publication
Automated and reference methods for the calculation of left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral or ejection fraction by non-cardiologists: a systematic review on the agreement of the two methods. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 27 December 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →