PDF herunterladen
CC BY 4.0 · Aorta (Stamford) 2016; 04(04): 124-130
DOI: 10.12945/j.aorta.2016.16.014
State-of-the-Art Review
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Mystery of the Z-Score

Alexander E. Curtis
1   Aortic Institute at Yale-New Haven Hospital, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
,
Tanya A. Smith
1   Aortic Institute at Yale-New Haven Hospital, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
,
Bulat A. Ziganshin
1   Aortic Institute at Yale-New Haven Hospital, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
2   Department of Surgical Diseases #2, Kazan State Medical University, Kazan, Russia
,
John A. Elefteriades
1   Aortic Institute at Yale-New Haven Hospital, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

29. März 2016

29. Juni 2016

Publikationsdatum:
24. September 2018 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Reliable methods for measuring the thoracic aorta are critical for determining treatment strategies in aneurysmal disease. Z-scores are a pragmatic alternative to raw diameter sizes commonly used in adult medicine. They are particularly valuable in the pediatric population, who undergo rapid changes in physical development. The advantage of the Z-score is its inclusion of body surface area (BSA) in determining whether an aorta is within normal size limits. Therefore, Z-scores allow us to determine whether true pathology exists, which can be challenging in growing children. In addition, Z-scores allow for thoughtful interpretation of aortic size in different genders, ethnicities, and geographical regions. Despite the advantages of using Z-scores, there are limitations. These include intra- and inter-observer bias, measurement error, and variations between alternative Z-score nomograms and BSA equations. Furthermore, it is unclear how Z-scores change in the normal population over time, which is essential when interpreting serial values. Guidelines for measuring aortic parameters have been developed by the American Society of Echocardiography Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease Council, which may reduce measurement bias when calculating Z-scores for the aortic root. In addition, web-based Z-score calculators have been developed to aid in efficient Z-score calculations. Despite these advances, clinicians must be mindful of the limitations of Z-scores, especially when used to demonstrate beneficial treatment effect. This review looks to unravel the mystery of the Z-score, with a focus on the thoracic aorta. Here, we will discuss how Z-scores are calculated and the limitations of their use.

Key Words

Z-score - Pediatrics - Thoracic aorta
 

  • References

  • 1 Dallaire F, Bigras JL, Prsa M, Dahdah N. Bias related to body mass index in pediatric echocardiographic Z scores. Pediatr Cardiol 2015; 36: 667-676 . DOI: 10.1007/s00246-014-1063-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Chubb H, Simpson JM. The use of Z-scores in paediatric cardiology. Ann Pediatr Cardiol 2012; 5: 179-184 . DOI: 10.4103/0974-2069.99622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wang Y, Chen H-J. Use of percentiles and Z-Scores in anthropometry. . In: Preedy VR. Handbook of Anthropometry. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 29-48 . DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1788-1_2
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Colan SD. The why and how of Z scores. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2013; 26: 38-40 . DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2012.11.005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Daubeney PE, Blackstone EH, Weintraub RG, Slavik Z, Scanlon J, Webber SA. Relationship of the dimesion of cardiac structures to body size: an echocardiographic study in normal infants and children. Cardiol Young 1999; 9: 402-410 . DOI: 10.1017/S1047951100005217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sluysmans T, Colan SD. Theoretical and empirical derivation of cardiovascular allometric relationships in children. J Appl Physiol 2005; 99: 445-457 . DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01144.2004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Haycock GB, Schwartz GJ, Wisotsky DH. Geometric method for measuring body surface area: a height-weight formula validated in infants, children, and adults. J Pediatr 1978; 93: 62-66 . DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3476(78)80601-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lopez L, Colan SD, Frommelt PC, Ensing GJ, Kendall K, Younoszai AK. , et al. Recommendations for quantification methods during the performance of a pediatric echocardiogram: a report from the Pediatric Measurements Writing Group of the American Society of Echocardiography Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease Council. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2010; 23: 465-495 . DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2010.03.019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kampmann C, Wiethoff CM, Wenzel A, Stolz G, Betancor M, Wippermann C. , et al. Normal values of M mode echocardiographic measurements of more than 2000 healthy infants and children in central Europe. Heart 2000; 83: 667-672 . DOI: 10.1136/heart.83.6.667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mawad W, Drolet C, Dahdah N, Dallaire F. A review and critique of the statistical methods used to generate reference values in pediatric echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2013; 26: 29-37 . DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2012.09.021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Astill-McNish S, Straughan PL. An extended care transitional unit. Dimens Health Serv 1990; 67: 13-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cantinotti M, Lopez L. Nomograms for blood flow and tissue Doppler velocities to evaluate diastolic function in children: a critical review. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2013; 26: 126-141 . DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2012.11.017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lopez L. Pediatric echocardiography quality improvement. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2012; 25: 22a-23a . DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2012.10.013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cantinotti M, Scalese M, Murzi B, Assanta N, Spadoni I, Festa P. , et al. Echocardiographic nomograms for ventricular, valvular and arterial dimensions in caucasian children with a special focus on neonates, infants and toddlers. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2014; 27: 179-191.e2 . DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2013.10.001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Nwoye LO. Body surface area of Africans: a study based on direct measurements of Nigerian males. Hum Biol 1989; 61: 439-457 . PMID: 2680889
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Banerjee S, Sen R. Determination of the surface area of the body of Indians. J Appl Physiol 1955; 7: 585-588 . PMID: 14381332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Alvarez L, Aranega A, Saucedo R, Contreras JA. The quantitative anatomy of the normal human heart in fetal and perinatal life. Int J Cardiol 1987; 17: 57-72 . DOI: 10.1016/0167-5273(87)90033-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kirklin JW, Barratt-Boyes BG. Cardiac Surgery. , 2nd Edition. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Van Kimmenade RRJ, Kempers M, Jan de Boer M, Loeys BL, Timmermans J. A clinical appraisal of different Z-score equations for aortic root assessment in the diagnostic evaluation of Marfan syndrome. Genet Med 2013; 15: 528-532 . DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.172
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ihara T, Komori K, Yamamoto K, Kobayashi M, Banno H, Kodama A. Three-dimensional workstation is useful for measuring the correct size of abdominal aortic aneurysm diameters. Ann Vasc Surg 2013; 27: 154-161 . DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2012.03.009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gao L, Mao Q, Wen D, Zhang L, Zhou X, Hui R. The effect of beta-blocker therapy on progressive aortic dilatation in children and adolescents with Marfan’s syndrome: a meta-analysis. Acta Paediatr 2011; 100: e101-e105 . DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02293.x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lacro RV, Dietz HC, Sleeper LA, Yetman AT, Bradley TJ, Colan SD. , et al. Atenolol versus losartan in children and young adults with Marfan’s syndrome. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 2061-2071 . DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1404731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lee JY, Choi JW, Kim H. Determination of body surface area and formulas to estimate body surface area using the alginate method. J Physiol Anthropol 2008; 27: 71-82 . DOI: 10.2114/jpa2.27.71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Saganuwan SA, Ndakotsu AM. Standardization and scoring of the body surface area (BSA) formulas for calculation of the doses of anticancer agents for cancer patients from the North-Western Nigeria. J Cancer Sci Ther 2015; 7 . DOI: 10.4172/1948-5956.1000319
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ahn Y, Garruto RM. Estimations of body surface area in newborns. Acta Paediatr 2008; 97: 366-370 . DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.00666.x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Verbraecken J, Van de Heyning P, De Backer W, Van Gaal L. Body surface area in normal-weight, overweight, and obese adults. A comparison study. Metabolism 2006; 55: 515-524 . DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2005.11.004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Livingston EH, Lee S. Body surface area prediction in normal-weight and obese patients. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2001; 281: E586-E591 . PMID: 11500314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Yu CY, Lo YH, Chiou WK. The 3D scanner for measuring body surface area: a simplified calculation in the Chinese adult. Appl Ergon 2003; 34: 273-278 . DOI: 10.1016/S0003-6870(03)00007-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Jones PR, Baker AJ, Hardy CJ, Mowat AP. Measurement of body surface area in children with liver disease by a novel three-dimensional body scanning device. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1994; 68: 514-518 . DOI: 10.1007/BF00599522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Meban C. The surface area and volume of the human fetus. J Anat 1983; 137: 271-278
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mosteller RD. Simplified calculation of body-surface area. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 1098 . DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198710223171717
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 El Edelbi R, Lindemalm S, Eksborg S. Estimation of body surface area in various childhood ages--validation of the Mosteller formula. Acta Paediatr 2012; 101: 540-544 . DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02580.x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Shuter B, Aslani A. Body surface area: Du Bois and Du Bois revisited. Eur J Appl Physiol 2000; 82: 250-254 . DOI: 10.1007/s004210050679
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar