Cheng Feng1, Lixin Chen1, Jian Li1, Jiangtao Wang2, Fajin Dong1, Jinfeng Xu1. 1. Department of Ultrasound, Shenzhen People's Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Medical College of Jinan University, Shenzhen, China. 2. Ultrasonic Marketing Department of Philips (China) Investment Co., Ltd., China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare a full-automated software to quantify 3D transthoracic echocardiography namely, 3DE-HM (three-dimensional echocardiography HeartModel, Philips Healthcare) with the traditional manual quantitative method (3DE-manual) for assessing volumes of left atrial and ventricular volumes, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: 3D full volume images acquired from 156 subjects were collected and divided into 3 groups, which include 70 normal control cases (Group A), 17 patients with left ventricular remodeling after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (Group B), and 69 patients with left atrial remodeling secondary to hypertension (Group C). The 3DE-HM method was used to quantify left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), left atrial end-systolic volume (LAESV), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), respectively. The results were compared with those obtained with the 3DE-manual method for correlation and consistency analyses. The reproducibility of the 3DE-HM method was also evaluated. RESULTS: There was a high correlation between LVEDV, LVESV, LAESV and LVEF values obtained with the 3DE-HM method and those obtained using the 3DE-manual method (r = 0.72 to 0.97). The correlation was strongest for Group B, patients with left ventricular remodeling post-AMI also demonstrated the greatest degree of morphologic changes. There was a significant difference in all parameters measured with the 3DE-HM method in different groups (P < 0.05). The difference in the measurements of LVEDV and LVESV between the two methods was greatest in patients in Group B compared with patients with hypertension-induced left ventricular remodeling (Group C) and in normal controls (Group A) (P < 0.05). Lastly, the difference in the measurement of LAESV between the two methods was greater in patients with hypertension-induced left ventricular remodeling (Group C) than that in the control group (Group A) (P < 0.05). The post-processing time of the 3DE-HM data was significantly shorter than that using the 3DE-manual method (P < 0.05). There was no significant variability in repeated measurements at different time points using the 3DE-HM method either between subjects in different groups or within the same subject. CONCLUSION: 3DE-HM is a quick and feasible method for left ventricular quantification and is clinically applicable for evaluating patients with left atrial and left ventricular remodeling.
OBJECTIVE: To compare a full-automated software to quantify 3D transthoracic echocardiography namely, 3DE-HM (three-dimensional echocardiography HeartModel, Philips Healthcare) with the traditional manual quantitative method (3DE-manual) for assessing volumes of left atrial and ventricular volumes, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: 3D full volume images acquired from 156 subjects were collected and divided into 3 groups, which include 70 normal control cases (Group A), 17 patients with left ventricular remodeling after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (Group B), and 69 patients with left atrial remodeling secondary to hypertension (Group C). The 3DE-HM method was used to quantify left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), left atrial end-systolic volume (LAESV), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), respectively. The results were compared with those obtained with the 3DE-manual method for correlation and consistency analyses. The reproducibility of the 3DE-HM method was also evaluated. RESULTS: There was a high correlation between LVEDV, LVESV, LAESV and LVEF values obtained with the 3DE-HM method and those obtained using the 3DE-manual method (r = 0.72 to 0.97). The correlation was strongest for Group B, patients with left ventricular remodeling post-AMI also demonstrated the greatest degree of morphologic changes. There was a significant difference in all parameters measured with the 3DE-HM method in different groups (P < 0.05). The difference in the measurements of LVEDV and LVESV between the two methods was greatest in patients in Group B compared with patients with hypertension-induced left ventricular remodeling (Group C) and in normal controls (Group A) (P < 0.05). Lastly, the difference in the measurement of LAESV between the two methods was greater in patients with hypertension-induced left ventricular remodeling (Group C) than that in the control group (Group A) (P < 0.05). The post-processing time of the 3DE-HM data was significantly shorter than that using the 3DE-manual method (P < 0.05). There was no significant variability in repeated measurements at different time points using the 3DE-HM method either between subjects in different groups or within the same subject. CONCLUSION: 3DE-HM is a quick and feasible method for left ventricular quantification and is clinically applicable for evaluating patients with left atrial and left ventricular remodeling.
Entities:
Keywords:
Three-dimensional echocardiography; automated quantification software; left ventricular remodeling; volume