“Search simplicity and mistrust it.”Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), English thinker and mathematician
The metric ejection fraction (EF) is extensively employed to guage ventricular pumping efficiency, used for coronary heart failure (HF) classification, and its calculation is easy.1–3 For instance, with end-systolic quantity (ESV) =50 ml and end-diastolic quantity (EDV) =100 ml, the EF=50%. Sadly, its appropriate interpretation obtained inadequate consideration. As EF is a ratio-based quantity (or proportion) with out bodily unit(s), it can’t present distinctive data. The underlying downside, and in addition a logical answer, may be proven by the ventricular quantity area illustration (determine 1A) that relates ESV to EDV. Volumes could also be listed (i) for physique floor space, if acceptable. Specializing in ESVi and EDVi is necessary, as this mix is related to the acquainted stress–quantity (PV) loop description, which, in flip, connects with clinically related traits, equivalent to stroke work and myocardial oxygen consumption (MVO2).1
MRI information N=69 (6 ladies) acute myocardial infarction (AMI)Key: EDV = end-diastolic quantity; EF = ejection fraction; EFC = ejection fraction companion; ESV = end-systolic quantity
Can paired measurements be transformed to yield a single significant quantity?
EF has been adopted as a universally relevant metric and seems to current an optimum corresponding with the sectio aurea.2 Regardless of its recognition,2 it stays unclear what exactly constitutes its scientific foundation. A current survey introduced professionals and cons of EF,3 however didn’t determine the most important flaw, specifically its unitless nature.4–6 The weak point may be defined by contemplating analogy with systolic and diastolic arterial blood stress measurements. No one advances the blood stress ratio (BPR) as a easy measure to outline normotension, by a worth round 1.5 (for 120 over 80 mmHg – however, maybe surprisingly, additionally for 150 over 100, and so forth!). Clearly, a BPR of 1.5 may additionally check with hypertension, in addition to to hypotension, whereas severity can’t be expressed both. But, when referring to ventricular operate it’s totally acceptable to talk, e.g. a couple of worrisome EF of 0.4 (or 40% for that matter). Will we entertain application-specific guidelines?
EF as paradigm
The medical relevance of dimensionless ratio-based metrics has been mentioned.4–7 The acclaimed robustness of EF was by no means established, its use solely mildly criticised, however not totally challenged.4 Understanding the actual downside underlying the EF paradigm requires appreciation of its mathematical development. For this goal, the quantity area illustration (ESV vs. EDV) permits most well-liked exploration, as EF solely is dependent upon each variables.4,5 This editorial is based on the perception thus obtained, and describes in plain language the intrinsic limitation of EF.
The diagonal size, given the ratio, defines the dimensions of a TV display screen
Mathematically, the EF outcomes from the division of two volumes. This can be a acquainted algebraic process, however considerably particular as the result lacks any bodily dimension:
Equation 1. EF = (EDV – ESV)/EDV = 1 – (ESV/EDV) = 1 – (ESVi/EDVi)
Importantly, EF is dependent upon the stability between ESVi and EDVi, whereas each measured volumes can range over a substantial vary.4,5 Determine 1A shows the 2 determinants of EF. The calculated EF worth is just not distinctive, equally as earlier proven for BPR. A number of (matched) {EDV, ESV} mixtures generate the identical EF, as illustrated for information pairs obtained from 69 acute myocardial infarction (AMI) sufferers – how may we all know which affected person’s ventricle we intend to determine from the EF solely? All factors on any particular line passing from the origin have the identical EF, e.g. 45% as proven. This remark emphasises the basic shortcoming inherent to the remoted use of EF. The corresponding ESV and EDV values differ, as additionally mirrored by the EF companion (C), which is the gap from the origin to every level, and by the related distinct PV loops (determine 1B).
Key: EF = ejection fraction; EFC = ejection fraction companion; ESV = end-systolic quantity; LV = left ventricle
Certainly, it’s unimaginable to create a single metric (equivalent to EF) that displays the complete data as supplied by the underlying two (extremely variable) parts. Truly, EF requires consideration of an extra (companion) metric, as extensively described elsewhere.5 This companion to EF, denoted as EFC, carries bodily dimensions (specifically ml or ml/m2). Whereas EF stays fixed, the EFC displays the traits of the range of ESVi and EDVi values corresponding with any mounted EF. This truth can also be evident from the present follow to outline TV display screen measurement: what issues is the size of the diagonal, given the mounted ratio of peak to width. Certainly, the listing value for a TV is dependent upon the size of the diagonal (often expressed in inches). This diagonal is equal to the EFC for the ventricle, being calculated in precisely the identical method.5
Determine 1C reveals within the LV quantity area the {EDVi, ESVi} pairs for 190 HF sufferers, as described intimately elsewhere.8 Right here, we particularly handle EF in reference to mid-range (mr) phenotyping, flanked by HF with preserved (p) EF (≥50%), and lowered (r) EF (≤40%). For the mr-phenotype we observe an ESVi starting from 27 to 118 ml/m2. Thus, the HFmrEF phenotype refers to a strongly heterogeneous group, regardless of almost related EF values. Once more, related PV-loops are distinct (determine 1D): measurement, form and placement are all totally different, with implications for MVO2.1,4
Knowledge, courtesy of Professor G R Heyndrickx, Aalst, Belgium8Reproduced from Kerkhof PL et al. Heterogeneity of sufferers phenotyped as coronary heart failure with mildly lowered ejection fraction. Eur Coronary heart J, Vol 44, Suppl 2, November 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad655.825, by permission of Oxford College Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.Key: EDVi = end-diastolic quantity index; EF = ejection fraction; ESVi = end-systolic quantity index; HF = coronary heart failure; HFmrEF = coronary heart failure with a reasonably lowered ejection fraction
Key: EF = ejection fraction; ESVi = end-systolic quantity index; HFmrEF = coronary heart failure with a reasonably lowered ejection fraction; LV = left ventricle
HF ‘ratiotyping’ by utilizing EF
Present HF classification is merely primarily based on the situation of the person {EDVi, ESVi} level, with three choices (determine 1C): above the blue line, under the crimson line, or someplace between. This recipe for HF phenotyping may be finest characterised as ‘ratiotyping’.
Curiously, it has been documented that EF inversely correlates with the typical worth of ESVi and EDVi, indicating that EF displays the imply measurement of the LV.8,9 This remark means that EF-based phenotyping is a fancy different route for LV size-based classification.
In abstract, HF phenotypes are created by setting cut-off values for the EF ratio, however not for the pivotal EFC. Which means EF-based phenotyping lacks a vital second criterion. Think about that, likewise, BPR can be utilized to outline hypertension and hypotension!
Return to the first variables
There’s a lengthy custom of associating EF with the severity and prognosis of cardiac illness.1,2 A low worth for EF referred to poor ventricular efficiency, whereas values ≥50% belong to regular (i.e. wholesome) hearts. Later got here a puzzling shock, with the remark that just about half of all HF sufferers should not have EF melancholy, however fairly needs to be categorised as ‘preserved’, so far as their EF values are involved.
Theoretically, the limitation inherent to EF may be solved by introducing the EFC.5 This route ends in a brand new pair of metrics that’s absolutely equal to the unique mixture of ESVi and EDVi. It may be concluded that there is no such thing as a want to think about EF, whereas its software has no benefits both. Due to this fact, we suggest to desert the EF idea altogether, and as a substitute make use of the illustration of the acquainted ESVi versus EDVi (figures 1A and 1C).
Conclusion and path for the long run
As outlined right here, software of a easy metric like EF can’t work. EF is an incomplete measure, at finest proven to roughly point out common ventricular quantity. Incomplete interpretation results in the flaw inherent to the EF paradigm. It’s most well-liked to focus on the first information (i.e. the measured ESV and EDV), fairly than calculating derived metrics (equivalent to EF). This simple strategy was efficiently utilized within the blood stress area, and deserves adoption for evaluation of ventricular volumetric information.
HF phenotyping, as primarily based on EF, is definitely ‘ratiotyping’, leading to heterogeneous affected person teams with out reference to the acquainted PV-loop illustration. The latter has the benefit of providing clinically related data by way of MVO2, stroke work and ventriculo-arterial coupling.
Conflicts of curiosity
None declared.
Funding
None.
Editors’ be aware
This manuscript refers to a presentation on the annual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) congress, held in Amsterdam, on 27 August 2023.
References
1. Kerkhof PLM, Kuznetsova T, Ali R, Handly N. Left ventricular quantity evaluation as a primary software to explain cardiac operate. Adv Physiol Educ 2018;42:130–9. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00140.2017
2. Mihaileanu S, Antohi EL. Revisiting the connection between left ventricular ejection fraction and ventricular-arterial coupling. ESC Coronary heart Fail 2020;7:2214–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12880
3. Marwick TH. Ejection fraction professionals and cons: JACC state-of-the-art assessment. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:2360–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.2162
4. Kerkhof PL, Díaz-Navarro R, Heyndrickx GR, Handly N. La serendipia en torno la fracción de eyección: una revisión de la historia, la casualidad y la cuasi-funcionalidad de una métrica aplaudida [A critical analysis of ejection fraction]. Rev Med Chil 2022;150:232–40. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872022000200232
5. Kerkhof PLM, Peace RA, Handly N. Ratiology and a complementary class of metrics for cardiovascular investigations. Physiology (Bethesda) 2019;34:250–63. https://doi.org/10.1152/physiol.00056.2018
6. Konradi AO, Maslyansky AL, Kolesova E, Shlyakhto EV, Kerkhof PLM. Function of ratio-based metrics in cardiology. Russ J Cardiol 2020;25:145–53. https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2020-3929
7. Kerkhof PLM, Antohi EL, Handly N. Intercourse-specific analysis of arterial stiffness and left ventricular reworking: can we depend on dimensionless ratios? JACC Adv 2023;2:100431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2023.100431
8. Kerkhof PLM, Heyndrickx GR, Diaz-Navarro RA, Antohi EL, Mihaileanu S, Handly N. Ventricular and atrial ejection fractions are related to imply compartmental cavity quantity in cardiac illness. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2022;2022:1384–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC48229.2022.9871315
9. Diaz-Navarro RA, Kerkhof PLM. Left ventricular world operate index and the influence of its companion metric. Entrance Cardiovasc Med 2021;8:695883. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.695883