Head-to-Head Comparison of Left Ventricular Function Assessment with 64-Row Computed Tomography, Biplane Left Cineventriculography, and Both 2- and 3-Dimensional Transthoracic Echocardiography

Results For the global EF, Bland-Altman analysis showed significantly higher agreement between CT and MRI (p 0.005, 95% confidence interval: 14.2%) than for CVG ( 20.2%) and 3D Echo ( 21.2%). Only CVG (59.5 13.9%, p 0.03) significantly overestimated EF in comparison with MRI (55.6 16.0%). CT showed significantly better agreement for stroke volume than 2D Echo, 3D Echo, and CVG. In comparison with MRI, CVG—but not CT—significantly overestimated the end-diastolic volume (p 0.001), whereas 2D Echo and 3D Echo significantly underestimated the EDV (p 0.05). There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy (range: 76% to 88%) for regional LV function assessment between the 4 methods when compared with MRI. Interobserver agreement for EF showed high intraclass correlation for 64-row CT, MRI, 2D Echo, and 3D Echo (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.8), whereas agreement was lower for CVG (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.58).