Comparison of left ventricular hemodynamic forces measured by transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in healthy adults

2025

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1038/s41598-025-13966-5
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Hemodynamic forces (HDF), which reflect the forces exchanged between blood and cardiac tissues, can be derived from cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) or transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Although normal values are reported for each imaging technique, no study has compared HDF values within the same cohort so far. We aimed to compare left ventricular (LV) HDF parameters obtained from CMR and TTE in healthy subjects. Twenty volunteers underwent both cine-CMR and 2D-TTE (within 7 days) at the Heart Center University Medical Center in Astana, Kazakhstan. Images were analyzed offline using dedicated software to extract standard volumetric, functional, strain, and HDF parameters: longitudinal (A-B) and transverse (L-S) HDF, L-S/A-B HDF ratio, and HDF vector angle. Statistical comparisons were performed with significance set at p < 0.05; Bland-Altman plots assessed agreement. TTE significantly underestimated LV volumes, ejection fraction, and global longitudinal strain compared to CMR. Similarly, HDF values were lower with TTE for both longitudinal and transverse forces (A-B HDF: 12.4 ± 3.4 vs. 26.1 ± 6.6; L-S HDF: 2.6 ± 1.2 vs. 5.2 ± 1.4; both p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis confirmed systematic underestimation of HDF by TTE. These findings suggest that TTE and CMR cannot be used interchangeably for HDF assessment, particularly in serial studies.