Denisa Muraru1, Antonella Cecchetto1, Umberto Cucchini1, Xiao Zhou2, Roberto M Lang3, Gabriella Romeo1, Mani Vannan2, Sorina Mihaila4, Marcelo Haertel Miglioranza5, Sabino Iliceto1, Luigi P Badano6. 1. Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. 2. Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy; University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Carol Davila", Bucharest, Romania. 5. Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy; Cardiology Institute of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 6. Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. Electronic address: lpbadano@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intervendor consistency of left ventricular (LV) volume measurements using three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (3DTTE) has never been reported. Accordingly, we designed a prospective study to (1) compare head-to-head the accuracy of three three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) systems in measuring LV volumes and ejection fraction (EF) against cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR); (2) assess the intervendor variability of LV volumes and EF; and (3) compare the accuracy of fully automated versus semiautomated (i.e., manually corrected) methods of LV endocardial delineation against CMR. METHODS: We studied 92 patients (64% males, 52 years [95% CI, 20-83]) with a wide range of end-diastolic volumes (from 87 to 446 mL) and EFs (from 16% to 77%) using three different 3DE platforms (iE33; Vivid E9; Acuson SC2000) during the same echo study. CMR was performed within 3 ± 5 hours from the 3DE study in 35 patients. RESULTS: LV volumes provided by the three 3DE systems correlated with CMR volumes: end-diastolic volume (iE33: R2 = 0.93; E9: R2 = 0.94; SC2000: R2 = 0.94), end-systolic volume (iE33: R2 = 0.93; E9: R2 = 0.95; SC2000: R2 = 0.94), and EF (iE33: R2 = 0.79; E9: R2 = 0.80; SC2000: R2 = 0.77). In the 92 patients studied, LV volumes and EFs measured with the three systems were similar. Use of fully automated endocardial border detection algorithms significantly underestimated LV volumes, and the degree of underestimation was higher with larger LV volumes. CONCLUSIONS: LV volumes and EFs measured with the three 3DE systems are consistent. Fully automated algorithms underestimated LV volumes. Our findings may help in the clinical interpretation of LV parameters obtained using different 3DE systems and encourage the clinical use of 3DTTE.
BACKGROUND: Intervendor consistency of left ventricular (LV) volume measurements using three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (3DTTE) has never been reported. Accordingly, we designed a prospective study to (1) compare head-to-head the accuracy of three three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) systems in measuring LV volumes and ejection fraction (EF) against cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR); (2) assess the intervendor variability of LV volumes and EF; and (3) compare the accuracy of fully automated versus semiautomated (i.e., manually corrected) methods of LV endocardial delineation against CMR. METHODS: We studied 92 patients (64% males, 52 years [95% CI, 20-83]) with a wide range of end-diastolic volumes (from 87 to 446 mL) and EFs (from 16% to 77%) using three different 3DE platforms (iE33; Vivid E9; Acuson SC2000) during the same echo study. CMR was performed within 3 ± 5 hours from the 3DE study in 35 patients. RESULTS: LV volumes provided by the three 3DE systems correlated with CMR volumes: end-diastolic volume (iE33: R2 = 0.93; E9: R2 = 0.94; SC2000: R2 = 0.94), end-systolic volume (iE33: R2 = 0.93; E9: R2 = 0.95; SC2000: R2 = 0.94), and EF (iE33: R2 = 0.79; E9: R2 = 0.80; SC2000: R2 = 0.77). In the 92 patients studied, LV volumes and EFs measured with the three systems were similar. Use of fully automated endocardial border detection algorithms significantly underestimated LV volumes, and the degree of underestimation was higher with larger LV volumes. CONCLUSIONS: LV volumes and EFs measured with the three 3DE systems are consistent. Fully automated algorithms underestimated LV volumes. Our findings may help in the clinical interpretation of LV parameters obtained using different 3DE systems and encourage the clinical use of 3DTTE.
Authors: Jacob Christensen; Nino Emanuel Landler; Flemming Javier Olsen; Bo Feldt-Rasmussen; Ditte Hansen; Anne-Lise Kamper; Christina Christoffersen; Ellen Linnea Freese Ballegaard; Ida Maria Hjelm Sørensen; Sasha Saurbrey Bjergfelt; Eline Seidelin; Susanne Bro; Tor Biering-Sørensen Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Rebecca Dobson; Arjun K Ghosh; Bonnie Ky; Tom Marwick; Martin Stout; Allan Harkness; Rick Steeds; Shaun Robinson; David Oxborough; David Adlam; Susannah Stanway; Bushra Rana; Thomas Ingram; Liam Ring; Stuart Rosen; Chris Plummer; Charlotte Manisty; Mark Harbinson; Vishal Sharma; Keith Pearce; Alexander R Lyon; Daniel X Augustine Journal: Echo Res Pract Date: 2021-03-31
Authors: Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Valentina Volpato; Riccardo Cau; Mattia Chiesa; Luca Saba; Marco Guglielmo; Alberto Senatieri; Gregorio Chierchia; Gianluca Pontone; Serena Dell'Aversana; U Joseph Schoepf; Mason G Andrews; Paolo Basile; Andrea Igoren Guaricci; Paolo Marra; Denisa Muraru; Luigi P Badano; Sandro Sironi Journal: Heliyon Date: 2022-10-05
Authors: Alexandra Doronina; István Ferenc Édes; Adrienn Ujvári; Zoltán Kántor; Bálint Károly Lakatos; Márton Tokodi; Nóra Sydó; Orsolya Kiss; Alexey Abramov; Attila Kovács; Béla Merkely Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-05-28 Impact factor: 3.411