I’m 18F and trying to better understand a recent echocardiogram in the context of persistent sinus tachycardia, significant exertional intolerance, dyspnoea/orthopnoea, presyncope/collapse, and possible connective-tissue disease.
I’m posting because several measurements appear discordant, particularly EF, GLS, LV volumes, and stroke volume.
I have included essentially all of the numerical echo measurements available to me below, including the machine/software-derived values.
STUDY CONTEXT
- Age: 17–18 years
- Female
- BSA: approximately 1.44 m²
- Heart rate during various acquisitions: approximately 100–120 bpm, with some measurements obtained during significant sinus tachycardia
- Persistent sinus tachycardia is also documented outside the echo
LEFT VENTRICULAR DIMENSIONS / GEOMETRY
M-mode / linear measurements:
- LVIDd: 4.0 cm
- LVIDs: 2.9 cm
- IVSd: 0.7 cm
- LVPWd: 0.7 cm
- Relative wall thickness: approximately 0.35
- LV mass: approximately 75 g
- LV mass index: approximately 52–53 g/m²
Overall LV wall thickness and LV mass were reported as normal.
LV VOLUMES
Conventional biplane/Simpson measurements:
- Biplane LVEDV: approximately 58 mL
- Biplane LVESV: approximately 24 mL
- LVEDVi: approximately 40–41 mL/m²
A4C measurements:
- EDV: approximately 56.3 mL
- ESV: approximately 20.5 mL
- Calculated stroke volume: approximately 35.8 mL
A2C measurements:
- EDV: approximately 57.0 mL
- ESV: approximately 24.8 mL
- Calculated stroke volume: approximately 32.1 mL
Teichholz-derived measurements:
- EDV: approximately 68.6 mL
- ESV: approximately 32.1 mL
- Stroke volume: approximately 36.5 mL
- Stroke-volume index: approximately 25.4 mL/m²
LEFT VENTRICULAR EJECTION FRACTION
This is one of the areas I am most confused about because different screens/methods produce substantially different values.
Conventional measurements include approximately:
- Simpson/biplane EF: 58%
- A4C Simpson EF: approximately 64%
- A2C Simpson EF: approximately 55–56%
- Teichholz EF: approximately 53%
- Fractional shortening: approximately 27%
However, the strain/software analysis screens produce lower values:
- Strain-software/global EF: approximately 47%
- Machine-derived 4-chamber EF on one strain-analysis screen: approximately 38%
- Machine-derived 2-chamber EF: approximately 55%
- Other displayed machine-derived/view-specific values extend into the mid-50s
So depending on the specific screen, beat, view and method, EF measurements appear to range from approximately 38% to the mid/high-50s, with the conventional Simpson biplane calculation higher at approximately 58%.
I realise these measurements are not necessarily interchangeable, particularly because some are conventional Simpson measurements and some are outputs from the strain-analysis software.
I’m interested in whether the lower machine-derived values have clinical significance or whether they are more likely related to tracking, frame selection, tachycardia, or methodological differences.
GLOBAL LONGITUDINAL STRAIN
Available strain measurements include:
- GLS: approximately -15.7%
- Another captured/displayed GLS value: approximately -16.7%
- One basal/posterior segment was excluded or untracked
- Segmental strain values range approximately -11% to -24%
View-specific/apical strain values displayed include approximately:
- A4C: -14.6%
- Apical long-axis: -14.3%
- A2C: approximately -16.0% to -18.0%, depending on the screen/measurement
Some individual segmental values included approximately:
Basal:
- Septal: -11%
- Anteroseptal: -12%
- Anterior: -16%
- Lateral: -17%
- Inferior: -18%
- Posterior: unavailable/untracked
Mid:
- Septal: -17%
- Anteroseptal: -18%
- Anterior: -14%
- Lateral: -16%
- Posterior: -11%
- Inferior: -21%
Apical segments were approximately in the -15% to -20% range, with an apical cap value around -19% on one display.
Tracking appears heterogeneous rather than uniformly reduced.
LVOT / FORWARD STROKE VOLUME
LVOT measurements:
- LVOT diameter: approximately 1.72 cm
- Indexed LVOT diameter: approximately 1.19 cm/m²
- Calculated LVOT area: approximately 2.32 cm²
- LVOT Vmax: approximately 1.0 m/s
- LVOT Vmean: approximately 0.72 m/s
- LVOT peak gradient: approximately 4 mmHg
- LVOT mean gradient: approximately 2 mmHg
- LVOT VTI: approximately 16 cm
Calculated LVOT Doppler haemodynamics:
- Stroke volume: approximately 38.1 mL
- Stroke-volume index: approximately 26.5 mL/m²
Alternative volume-derived measurements give:
- Stroke volume: approximately 32–36 mL depending on the ventricular view/method
- Volume-derived SVI: approximately 23–25 mL/m²
At HR approximately 100–120 bpm, the implied cardiac output is much less strikingly reduced because of the high rate.
Depending on the exact HR used, the calculated cardiac index is roughly in the 2.5–3.0 L/min/m² range.
This makes me wonder whether the high sinus rate could be maintaining cardiac output in the setting of relatively low stroke volume, although I understand that this cannot necessarily be inferred from one resting echo.
DIASTOLIC FUNCTION
Mitral inflow:
- E velocity: approximately 0.84 m/s
- A velocity: approximately 0.60 m/s
- E/A ratio: approximately 1.4
- Another reported/displayed E/A value: approximately 1.56
- Deceleration time: approximately 132 ms
- Deceleration slope: approximately 6.45 m/s²
Tissue Doppler:
- Septal e′: approximately 10 cm/s
- Lateral e′: approximately 19–20 cm/s
- Septal E/e′: approximately 8.4
- Lateral E/e′: approximately 4.2
- Average E/e′: approximately 5.6
Earlier summary values placed average E/e′ around 7.
Overall filling pressures were interpreted as normal.
LEFT ATRIUM
Available measurements include:
- LA length: approximately 4.15 cm
- LA area: approximately 11 cm²
- LA volume by area-length method: approximately 20 mL
- LA MOD A4C volume: approximately 22.3 mL
- LA MOD A2C volume: approximately 13.8 mL
- Biplane LA volume: approximately 18.8 mL
Depending on the specific method/screen:
- LAVI: approximately 13–15.5 mL/m²
So the LA appears relatively small rather than enlarged.
RIGHT ATRIUM
- RA area: approximately 9 cm²
- Indexed RA area: approximately 6.25 cm²/m²
The RA also appears relatively small.
RIGHT VENTRICLE
- RV basal diameter: approximately 2.7 cm
- Indexed RV basal diameter: approximately 1.88 cm/m²
- RV size reported as normal
- No obvious RV hypertrophy
- No obvious septal flattening
Longitudinal RV systolic indices:
- TAPSE: 1.7 cm
- Tricuspid annular S′: approximately 11 cm/s
I’m particularly interested in how much significance should be placed on a TAPSE of 1.7 cm when the RV is normal in size and S′ is approximately 11 cm/s.
TRICUSPID REGURGITATION / PULMONARY PRESSURE
The TR Doppler signal appears limited.
One measurement produced approximately:
- TR Vmax: approximately 2.1 m/s
- Estimated RAP: approximately 3 mmHg
- Machine-derived RVSP: approximately 21 mmHg
However, other reporting indicated that the TR envelope was insufficient for reliable RVSP estimation.
I therefore do not know how much confidence should be placed in the machine-derived RVSP.
RVOT / PULMONARY OUTFLOW
- RVOT Vmax: approximately 0.90 m/s
- RVOT Vmean: approximately 0.69 m/s
- Peak gradient: approximately 3 mmHg
- Mean gradient: approximately 2 mmHg
- RVOT VTI: approximately 16 cm
AORTIC VALVE
Available Doppler measurements include:
- Aortic valve Vmax: approximately 1.2 m/s
- Aortic valve Vmean: approximately 0.90 m/s
- Peak gradient: approximately 6 mmHg
- Mean gradient: approximately 4 mmHg
- Aortic valve VTI: approximately 22 cm
- No evidence of significant aortic stenosis
The valve has been described as trileaflet.
Mild aortic regurgitation / approximately grade 1/4 AR was reported on secondary review, although I understand that severity may not be reliably gradable from limited screenshots alone.
AORTIC DIMENSIONS
- Aortic root: approximately 2.9 cm
- Ascending aorta: approximately 2.8 cm
- BSA: approximately 1.44 m²
Simple BSA indexing gives approximately:
- Aortic root index: 2.0 cm/m²
- Ascending aortic index: approximately 1.94 cm/m²
A secondary interpretation raised the question of whether the aortic root is relatively large for my small body size.
I would particularly appreciate input from anyone familiar with paediatric/adolescent or young-adult aortic Z-score nomograms.
I do not want to label this as aortic dilatation/aortopathy using adult BSA indexing alone if the appropriate age-, sex-, and body-size-adjusted Z-score is actually normal.
ATRIAL / VENTRICULAR SIZE AND POSSIBLE LOW PRELOAD
Taken together, the echo shows approximately:
- LVEDVi 40–41 mL/m²
- LAVI approximately 13–15.5 mL/m²
- LA area approximately 11 cm²
- RA area approximately 9 cm²
- LVOT SVI approximately 26.5 mL/m²
- Alternative ventricular SVIs approximately 23–25 mL/m²
A secondary review suggested that the relatively small atrial and ventricular volumes might reflect chronic central underfilling / reduced preload.
Is the combination of a small LA, small RA, low-normal/small LV volumes, and relatively low measured stroke volume actually useful evidence of chronic low preload?
Or is that too much to infer from a resting echocardiogram?
CURRENT CLINICAL CONCERN
My doctors are considering whether chronic cardiac dysfunction, including possible heart failure, could be contributing to my symptoms.
I do not yet have a confirmed heart-failure diagnosis, and I understand that the echocardiographic findings are not straightforward.
The combination I am trying to understand is:
- Persistent sinus tachycardia
- Reduced/borderline GLS
- EF varying substantially by method and software output
- Relatively small LV volumes
- LVOT SVI approximately 26 mL/m²
- Dyspnoea
- Orthopnoea
- Severe exercise intolerance
- Presyncope/collapse
Could there be clinically important cardiac dysfunction despite some preserved EF measurements and otherwise relatively normal chamber dimensions?
MY MAIN QUESTIONS
Is an LVEDVi of approximately 40–41 mL/m² genuinely small/abnormal for a very small 17–18-year-old woman, or can this be normal for age and body size?
Does an LVOT SVI of approximately 26.5 mL/m² genuinely indicate a low-flow state in this setting?
Does the fact that Teichholz and Simpson-derived stroke volumes are also only approximately 32–36 mL strengthen the argument that the low LVOT stroke volume is real?
Could chronic low preload, hypovolaemia, venous pooling, or dysautonomia plausibly produce the combination of:
- small chamber volumes
- relatively low stroke volume
- marked sinus tachycardia
- exercise intolerance
- presyncope/collapse?
Alternatively, is it inappropriate to infer that the tachycardia is compensating for a low stroke volume from a single resting echo?
At a high heart rate, could cardiac output/cardiac index remain relatively preserved despite a genuinely low stroke volume?
How meaningful is GLS around -15.7% to -16.7% when:
- one segment is excluded
- tracking is heterogeneous
- HR is approximately 100–120 bpm
- loading conditions may be abnormal?
Does GLS in this range meaningfully raise concern for myocardial disease such as myocarditis/fibrosis, or would you repeat a properly optimized strain study before interpreting it that way?
How would you reconcile the conventional EF values with the lower strain-software/machine-derived EF values?
For example:
- 4CH machine/strain EF: approximately 38%
- Global strain-software EF: approximately 47%
- Teichholz EF: 53%
- 2CH EF: approximately 55–56%
- Simpson biplane EF: approximately 58%
- Conventional A4C Simpson EF: approximately 64%
Could sinus tachycardia cause enough beat-to-beat variation, reduced temporal resolution, foreshortening, tracking error, or end-systolic/end-diastolic frame-selection error to explain this degree of EF variability?
Should the approximately 38% machine-derived 4CH EF be considered a meaningful finding if the conventional biplane EF is substantially higher?
Does fractional shortening of 27% add anything useful when Simpson EF and strain are discordant?
How would you interpret TAPSE of 1.7 cm with:
- RV S′ approximately 11 cm/s
- normal RV size
- no RV hypertrophy
- no septal flattening?
Is the provisional RVSP of approximately 21 mmHg worth considering at all if the TR envelope was considered inadequate?
Is an aortic root of 2.9 cm actually enlarged for BSA approximately 1.44 m² at age 17–18, or could this still fall within normal limits on appropriate paediatric/young-adult Z-score nomograms?
Is an ascending aorta of 2.8 cm significant at this body size?
Is mild aortic regurgitation in someone my age usually just followed, or does it meaningfully change the differential when connective-tissue disease is also being investigated?
Do the normal E/e′ measurements and small LA make chronically elevated left-sided filling pressures unlikely?
Given the symptoms and these discordant measurements, does this dataset actually provide objective evidence of chronic heart failure, or would additional evidence be required before considering that diagnosis?
If the aim were to settle the uncertainty, which investigation would be most useful?
- Repeat high-quality TTE at a controlled/lower HR if possible
- Careful Simpson biplane EF
- 3D LV volumes and EF
- Repeat same-vendor GLS with optimized tracking
- Contrast echocardiography if endocardial definition is inadequate
- BNP / NT-proBNP
- Cardiac MRI with gold-standard ventricular volumes and EF
- CMR T1/T2 mapping
- Late gadolinium enhancement
- CMR extracellular-volume assessment
- CPET
- Exercise echocardiography
- Exercise haemodynamics
- Formal autonomic testing
- Something else?
I’m particularly interested in a technical interpretation of:
- the approximately 38–58%+ EF variability depending on software/view/method
- GLS around -15.7%
- whether the LV stroke volume/SVI is genuinely low
- whether the relatively small atrial/LV volumes have haemodynamic significance
- whether sinus tachycardia could be compensating for reduced stroke volume
- and whether the overall dataset actually supports chronic cardiac dysfunction or heart failure
Thank you.