OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the validity, accuracy, and reproducibility of real-time 3-dimensional (3D) echocardiography for small distances, areas, and volumes. METHODS: Real-time 3D echocardiography using matrix technology was performed in small calibrated tissue-mimicking phantoms and compared with 2-dimensional (2D) echocardiography. In a systematic variation of variables on data acquisition and analysis including different 3D workstations (manual disk summation versus semiautomatic border detection), the relative contributions of sources of errors were determined. The clinical relevance of the in vitro findings was assessed in 5 neonates and infants. RESULTS: Distance calculation was valid (mean relative error ± SD, -0.15% ± 1.2%). Underestimation of areas and volumes was significant for both 2D and 3D echocardiography (area: 2D, -7.0% ± 2.9%; 3D, -6.0% ± 2.8%; volume: 2D, -13.1% ± 4.5%; 3D, -6.7% ± 2.5%; P < .05). Adjustment of compression and gain on data acquisition (difference of the means: 2D, 11.6%; 3D, 17.9%), gain on postprocessing (3D, 3.4%), and the border detection algorithm on analysis (2D, 4.8%; 3D, 16.6%) had a highly significant effect on volume and area calculations (P < .001). In vivo, compression and gain on acquisition (3D, 19.1%) and the 3D workstation on analysis (3D, 22.2%) had a highly significant impact on left ventricular volumetry (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Real-time 3D echocardiography is a reliable method for calculation of small distances, areas, and volumes comparable with the size of the neonatal and infant heart. Variables influencing boundary identification during image acquisition and analysis have a significant impact on 2D and 3D area and volume calculations. Standardized protocols are mandatory to avoid these sources of error in both clinical practice and research.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the validity, accuracy, and reproducibility of real-time 3-dimensional (3D) echocardiography for small distances, areas, and volumes. METHODS: Real-time 3D echocardiography using matrix technology was performed in small calibrated tissue-mimicking phantoms and compared with 2-dimensional (2D) echocardiography. In a systematic variation of variables on data acquisition and analysis including different 3D workstations (manual disk summation versus semiautomatic border detection), the relative contributions of sources of errors were determined. The clinical relevance of the in vitro findings was assessed in 5 neonates and infants. RESULTS: Distance calculation was valid (mean relative error ± SD, -0.15% ± 1.2%). Underestimation of areas and volumes was significant for both 2D and 3D echocardiography (area: 2D, -7.0% ± 2.9%; 3D, -6.0% ± 2.8%; volume: 2D, -13.1% ± 4.5%; 3D, -6.7% ± 2.5%; P < .05). Adjustment of compression and gain on data acquisition (difference of the means: 2D, 11.6%; 3D, 17.9%), gain on postprocessing (3D, 3.4%), and the border detection algorithm on analysis (2D, 4.8%; 3D, 16.6%) had a highly significant effect on volume and area calculations (P < .001). In vivo, compression and gain on acquisition (3D, 19.1%) and the 3D workstation on analysis (3D, 22.2%) had a highly significant impact on left ventricular volumetry (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Real-time 3D echocardiography is a reliable method for calculation of small distances, areas, and volumes comparable with the size of the neonatal and infant heart. Variables influencing boundary identification during image acquisition and analysis have a significant impact on 2D and 3D area and volume calculations. Standardized protocols are mandatory to avoid these sources of error in both clinical practice and research.
Authors: Gerald R Marx; Girish Shirali; Jami C Levine; Lin T Guey; James F Cnota; Jeanne M Baffa; William L Border; Steve Colan; Gregory Ensing; Mark K Friedberg; David J Goldberg; Salim F Idriss; J Blaine John; Wyman W Lai; Minmin Lu; Shaji C Menon; Richard G Ohye; David Saudek; Pierre C Wong; Gail D Pearson Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Katharina Linden; Dennis Ladage; Oliver Dewald; Eva Gatzweiler; Andrea Pieper; Matthias Seehase; Georg Daniel Duerr; Johannes Breuer; Ulrike Herberg Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Ulrike Herberg; Katharina Linden; Oliver Dewald; Eva Gatzweiler; Matthias Seehase; Georg Daniel Duerr; Jonas Dörner; Stephanie Kleppe; Dennis Ladage; Johannes Breuer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 3.240