IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0161536.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical Evaluation of Heart Failure: Agreement among Tests

Author

Listed:
  • Amit K Pandey
  • William F Penny
  • Valmik Bhargava
  • N Chin Lai
  • Ronghui Xu
  • H Kirk Hammond

Abstract

Methods commonly used clinically to assess cardiac function in patients with heart failure include ejection fraction (EF), exercise treadmill testing (ETT), and symptom evaluation. Although these approaches are useful in evaluating patients with heart failure, there are at times substantial mismatches between individual assessments. For example, ETT results are often discordant with EF, and patients with minimal symptoms sometimes have surprisingly low EFs. To better define the relationship of these methods of assessment, we studied 56 patients with heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF) who underwent measurement of ETT duration, EF by echocardiography, quantitative symptom evaluation, and LV peak dP/dt (rate of left ventricular pressure development and decline, measured invasively). Correlations were determined among these four tests in order to assess the relationship of EF, ETT, and symptoms against LV peak dP/dt. In addition, we sought to determine whether EF, ETT, and symptoms correlated with each other. Overall, correlations were poor. Only 15 of 63 total correlations (24%) were significant (p

Suggested Citation

  • Amit K Pandey & William F Penny & Valmik Bhargava & N Chin Lai & Ronghui Xu & H Kirk Hammond, 2016. "Clinical Evaluation of Heart Failure: Agreement among Tests," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-11, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0161536
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161536
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161536
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161536&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0161536?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0161536. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.