AIMS: To assess the accuracy and reproducibility of a novel automated software for left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (EF) measurements using real-time three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 103 patients with a wide range of LV volumes were analyzed with both 4D AutoLVQ and 4D TomTec software. In 23 patients, a side-by-side comparison of LV volume and EF measurements was done between 3DE, 2DE, and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Excellent correlation was found between 4D AutoLVQ and 4D TomTec [r = 0.98 for end-diastolic volume (EDV), 0.99 for end-systolic volume (ESV), and 0.97 for EF, P < 0.0001], with small biases and narrow limits of agreement: EDV 5.2 mL (-14 to 25 mL), ESV 2.9 mL (-10 to 16 mL), EF -0.2% (-7 to 6%). Time of analysis was halved using 4D AutoLVQ with manual correction (1 min 52 s+/- 30 s) in comparison with 4D TomTec software (3 min 46 s +/- 1 min 24 s). Both softwares showed similar accuracy in comparison with CMR (4D AutoLVQ biases -11.0 mL, -9.1 mL, and 2.9%; 4D TomTec biases -8.3 mL, -7.4 mL, and 2.8% for EDV, ESV, and EF, respectively, P = NS for all) and good reproducibility. CONCLUSION: Novel 4D AutoLVQ software showed very good agreement with more time-consuming 4D TomTec software, having similar accuracy against CMR.
AIMS: To assess the accuracy and reproducibility of a novel automated software for left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (EF) measurements using real-time three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 103 patients with a wide range of LV volumes were analyzed with both 4D AutoLVQ and 4D TomTec software. In 23 patients, a side-by-side comparison of LV volume and EF measurements was done between 3DE, 2DE, and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Excellent correlation was found between 4D AutoLVQ and 4D TomTec [r = 0.98 for end-diastolic volume (EDV), 0.99 for end-systolic volume (ESV), and 0.97 for EF, P < 0.0001], with small biases and narrow limits of agreement: EDV 5.2 mL (-14 to 25 mL), ESV 2.9 mL (-10 to 16 mL), EF -0.2% (-7 to 6%). Time of analysis was halved using 4D AutoLVQ with manual correction (1 min 52 s+/- 30 s) in comparison with 4D TomTec software (3 min 46 s +/- 1 min 24 s). Both softwares showed similar accuracy in comparison with CMR (4D AutoLVQ biases -11.0 mL, -9.1 mL, and 2.9%; 4D TomTec biases -8.3 mL, -7.4 mL, and 2.8% for EDV, ESV, and EF, respectively, P = NS for all) and good reproducibility. CONCLUSION: Novel 4D AutoLVQ software showed very good agreement with more time-consuming 4D TomTec software, having similar accuracy against CMR.
Authors: Ben Ren; Wim B Vletter; Jackie McGhie; Osama I I Soliman; Marcel L Geleijnse Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Daniel Barbosa; Brecht Heyde; Thomas Dietenbeck; Helene Houle; Denis Friboulet; Olivier Bernard; Jan D'hooge Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Juan Carlos Plana; Maurizio Galderisi; Ana Barac; Michael S Ewer; Bonnie Ky; Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie; Javier Ganame; Igal A Sebag; Deborah A Agler; Luigi P Badano; Jose Banchs; Daniela Cardinale; Joseph Carver; Manuel Cerqueira; Jeanne M DeCara; Thor Edvardsen; Scott D Flamm; Thomas Force; Brian P Griffin; Guy Jerusalem; Jennifer E Liu; Andreia Magalhães; Thomas Marwick; Liza Y Sanchez; Rosa Sicari; Hector R Villarraga; Patrizio Lancellotti Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Frederico J N Mancuso; Valdir A Moises; Dirceu R Almeida; Dalva Poyares; Luciana J Storti; Flavio S Brito; Sergio Tufik; Angelo A V de Paola; Antonio C C Carvalho; Orlando Campos Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Attila Kovács; Mihály Tapolyai; Csilla Celeng; Edit Gara; Mária Faludi; Klára Berta; Astrid Apor; Andrea Nagy; András Tislér; Béla Merkely Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 2.357