Reliability and limitations of echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular mass for risk stratification and follow-up in single patients: the RES trial

Objective To investigate the clinical reliability of repeated measurements of left ventricular mass in a single patient. Design We used test-retest reliability analysis, within-class correlation a nd interval of agreement measures. Methods Two M-mode tracings (three consecutive cycles) were recorded in the same session and 3-10 days apart (5 +/- 2 days; mean +/- SD) in 261 partic ipants(age 45 +/- 13 years, body mass index 24.7 +/- 3.6 kg/m(2); 131 hyper tensive and 130 normotensive; 50% of each group women) in 16 centres in Ita ly. The two tracings were read by two observers in each centre, after class ification by a three-order quality score (1 = poor, 2 = sufficient, 3 = opt imal). Results The average quality score was 2.11 +/- 0.71 (21% poor, 50% sufficie nt, 29% optimal). Left ventricular mass values ranged from 56 to 419 g (170 +/- 61 g), On the same day, within-observer 90% interval of agreement betw een tracing 1 and tracing 2 was -28 to +22 g (-17 to +11% of tracing 1), Fo r day-to-day test-retest within-observer variability (average three cycles) , the 90% interval of agreement was -30 to +35 g (-18 to +18%). This variab ility decreased to -13 to +12% at the 80% interval of agreement and -12 to +11% at the 75% interval of agreement The 90% interval of agreement of test -retest between-observer variability was -26 to 30 g (-19 to +15%). A negli gible regression toward the mean was identified. Categorical consistency of retest in the identification of hypertensive patients with left ventricula r hypertrophy, classified in the first study, was 87% (k = 0.87). Conclusions Measurement of left ventricular mass in single patients allows reliable risk stratification on the basis of the presence of left ventricul ar hypertrophy, The probability of a true change in left ventricular mass o ver time is maximized for a single-reader difference greater than 18% of th e initial value, although differences of 10-13% might also have clinical re levance. (C) Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.