Current and Clinically Relevant Echocardiographic Parameters to Analyze Left Atrial Function

The evaluation of the left atrial (LA) size using the LA volume index (LAVI) is clinically relevant due to its prognostic significance in various conditions. Nonetheless, adding a LA function assessment to the LAVI provides further clinical and prognostic information in different cardiovascular (CV) diseases. The assessment of LA function by echocardiography primarily includes volumetric measurements (LA ejection fraction [LAEF]), tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) (mitral annular late diastolic velocity [a']), and speckle-tracking methods, such as LA longitudinal reservoir strain (LA strain). This review analyzes and discusses the current medical evidence and potential clinical usefulness of these different methods to analyze LA function.

Accuracy, analysis time, and reproducibility of dedicated 4D echocardiographic left atrial volume quantification software

Four-dimensional (4D) echocardiography may provide more accurate estimations of left atrial (LA) volumes than 2-dimensional (2D) measures. We sought to compare the concordance of a novel 4D LA quantification software versus 2D echocardiography against cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). This was a multimodality imaging substudy of a randomized clinical trial (the LOOP study). Elderly participants with stroke risk factors were included. A subgroup of this study population underwent transthoracic echocardiography (n = 1441) and a subset underwent CMR within two weeks (n = 73). The mean age of the echocardiographic study population was 74 years and 54% were men. The maximal LA volume (LAVmax) was 47 mL by 2D, 52 mL by 4D, and 104 mL by CMR. While 2D echocardiography showed a moderate correlation with 4D (R2 = 0.51) it yielded significantly lower values for LAVmax with a mean difference of 4.5 ± 11.9 mL, p < 0.001. 4D echocardiography correlated strongly with CMR measurements (R2 = 0.70), whereas 2D echocardiography showed a moderate correlation (R2 = 0.53). However, both modalities systematically underestimated LAVmax largely compared to CMR (2D vs. CMR: - 54.9 ± 21.3 mL; 4D vs. CMR: - 49.7 ± 18.6 mL). Similar observations were made for minimal LA volume and LA volume before atrial contraction. Analyses time by 4D was shorter than for 2D (90 ± 11 vs. 118 ± 16 s, p < 0.001). Intra- and interobserver variability was lower for 4D than 2D. Four-dimensional echocardiography is faster, more reproducible, and correlates more closely to CMR than 2D echocardiography. Both 4D and 2D echocardiography systematically underestimates LA volumes compared to CMR, emphasizing that values of LA volumes are not interchangeable between echocardiography and CMR.

Validation of Left Atrial Volume Estimation by Left Atrial Diameter from the Parasternal Long-Axis View

BACKGROUND

Measurement of left atrial (LA) volume (LAV) is recommended for quantification of LA size. Only LA anteroposterior diameter (LAd) is available in a number of large cohorts, trials, or registries. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether LAV may be reasonably estimated from LAd.

METHODS

One hundred forty consecutive patients referred to our outpatient clinics were prospectively enrolled to measure LAd from the long-axis view on two-dimensional echocardiography. LA orthogonal dimensions were also taken from apical four- and two-chamber views. LAV was measured using the Simpson, area-length, and ellipsoid (LAV_e) methods. The first 70 patients were the learning series and the last 70 the testing series (TeS). In the learning series, best-fitting regression analysis of LAV-LAd was run using all LAV methods, and the highest values of F were chosen among the regression equations. In the TeS, the best-fitting regressions were used to estimate LAV from LAd.

RESULTS

In the learning series, the best-fitting regression was linear for the Spearman method (r² = 0.62, F = 111.85, P = .0001) and area-length method (r² = 0.62, F = 112.24, P = .0001) and powered for the LAV_e method (r² = 0.81, F = 288.41, P = .0001). In the TeS, the r² value for LAV prediction was substantially better using the LAV_e method (r² = 0.89) than the Simpson (r² = 0.72) or area-length (r² = 0.70) method, as was the intraclass correlation (ρ = 0.96 vs ρ = 0.89 and ρ = 0.89, respectively). In the TeS, the sensitivity and specificity of LA dilatation by the estimated LAV_e method were 87% and 90%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LAV can be estimated from LAd using a nonlinear equation with an elliptical model. The proposed method may be used in retrospective analysis of existing data sets in which determination of LAV was not programmed.