EF interpretion differences

[j_e_n]

The first two echos I had two different persons each told me my EF was 60.  Last week I had another echo and the lady told me it is 55.  I said that I was disappointed it was lower.  She told me that 55 is her standard for normal.  I told her that I know 55 is normal but that mine was 60 before and she said that is because she uses 55 for normal.

I asked my cardiologist about it and my cardiologist said not to worry about it, looked at my chart and said "actually it was 67".  

Does anybody know what that means?  Is it 55, 67 - somewhere in between??

[kenkeith]

What is open for qualification are the estimates of the dimensions...volume.  The echo  computes volume in the left ventricle at peak diastole (filling capacity) subtract systole (after pumping phase) and divide by filling capacity for a percentage.

The tech outlines the diameters with a transducer, and with a moving heartbeat the borders are sometimes fuzzy and difficult to accurately measure.  I believe the tech didn't have the computation, and stated 55...meaning it was normal as it was obvious the heart was functioning properly.  Rather than giving a calculation of 55 perhaps it should have been stated EF was normal.

The heart dilates and capacity changes as well as contractility to maintain a balance of blood flow between the left side and the right side so EF is not static (normal range is 55 to 75%).  If the EF is over 75% it could indicate overcompensation for a pathological underlying problem.  Untreated the left ventricle could dilate to the extent that contrqactility is impaired and a drop to 29% (heart failure).  EF is as variable as the heart rate and both are compensatory mechanisms.

[NTB]

seems weird, doesn't it? As if that one lady just decides on her own to "normalize" the results according to her own way of thinking, and doesn't care about anything else.

I'd think you can safely ignore the "55" figure. Besides that, in medicine you don't usually have absolute numbers anyway. You can get a blood count done, and a minute later another blood count will show something somewhat different. It's true that you are talking about the exact *same* test, but even so there is the matter of human interpretation. Plus it seems like she is doing some less-than-usual conversion of the figure...

[madjlp]

Sounds like the tech was just trying to say you're fine cause you're 55 - not that you're actually 55 but that you're above the cut off and therefore fine - if the report says 67 then I'd assume thats what your EF is.  Also - EF measurements by echo have something like a +/-7% margin of error - so a single reading of 55 wouldn't necessarily indicate a worsening condition.  I've had readings from 54-65 on my EF over the course of the last 16 months and it seems the differences are due to physiological factors and measurement variations as opposed to improvements or declines in my ventricular function.  good luck

[j_e_n]

Thanks!

I know what the normal range is.

I just don't understand how I got two different answers off of the same echo - the tech who performed the echo said 55 and looking at the same echo results the cardiologist said 67.  

[Encephalomalcia]

Normal is 55 to 70.  Yours is great!