Reliability of estimating left ventricuear ejection fraction in clinical routine: a validation study of the SWEDEHEART registry

Objective Patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in Sweden routinely undergo an echocardiographic examination with assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). LVEF is a measurement widely used for outcome prediction and treatment guidance. The obtained LVEF is categorized as normal (> 50%) or mildly, moderately, or severely impaired (40-49, 30-39, and < 30%, respectively) and reported to the nationwide registry for ACS (SWEDEHEART). The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the reported LVEF values by validating them against an independent re-evaluation of LVEF. Methods A random sample of 130 patients from three hospitals were included. LVEF re-evaluation was performed by two independent reviewers using the modified biplane Simpson method and their mean LVEF was compared to the LVEF reported to SWEDEHEART. Agreement between reported and re-evaluated LVEF was assessed using Gwet's AC2 statistics. Results Analysis showed good agreement between reported and re-evaluated LVEF (AC2: 0.76 [95% CI 0.69-0.84]). The LVEF re-evaluations were in agreement with the registry reported LVEF categorization in 86 (66.0%) of the cases. In 33 (25.4%) of the cases the SWEDEHEART-reported LVEF was lower than re-evaluated LVEF. The opposite relation was found in 11 (8.5%) of the cases (p < 0.005). Conclusion Independent validation of SWEDEHEART-reported LVEF shows an overall good agreement with the re-evaluated LVEF. However, a tendency towards underestimation of LVEF was observed, with the largest discrepancy between re-evaluated LVEF and registry LVEF in subjects with subnormal LV-function in whom the reported assessment of LVEF should be interpreted more cautiously. [GRAPHICS] .

Automated summary

The study aimed to validate the reported LVEF values in the SWEDEHEART registry for ACS patients in Sweden, and found good agreement with independently re-evaluated LVEF. However, a tendency towards underestimation of LVEF was observed, suggesting cautious interpretation of the reported LVEF assessment.