Assessment of Left Ventricular Volumes with Echocardiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Real-Life Evaluation of Standard versus New Semiautomatic Methods

被引:39
|
作者
Aurich, Matthias [1 ]
Andre, Florian [1 ]
Keller, Marius [1 ]
Greiner, Sebastian [1 ]
Hess, Alexander [1 ]
Buss, Sebastian J. [1 ]
Katus, Hugo A. [1 ]
Mereles, Derliz [1 ]
机构
[1] Heidelberg Univ, Dept Internal Med 3, Heidelberg, Germany
关键词
Volumetry; Ejection fraction; Systolic function; TIME 3-DIMENSIONAL ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; AUTOMATED BORDER-DETECTION; EJECTION FRACTION; MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION; EUROPEAN-SOCIETY; HEART-FAILURE; RECOMMENDATIONS; QUANTIFICATION; QUANTITATION; VALIDATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.echo.2014.07.006
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Routine quantitative assessment of left ventricular (LV) volumes with echocardiography is hindered by time-consuming methods requiring a manual trace of the LV cavity from two apical two-dimensional planes. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate faster new semiautomatic echocardiographic methods that could represent a feasible alternative for the assessment of LV volumes and ejection fraction (EF) in clinical practice. Methods: Two semiautomatic methods, the automated EF (Auto-EF) for two-dimensional echocardiography and the 4D Auto LVQ tool for three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE), were compared with the biplane modified Simpson's method and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in 47 patients. To evaluate the accuracy of volumetry, additional in vitro measurements using water-filled latex balloons were performed with both modalities. Results: Results of balloon volumetry by echocardiography and CMR measurements were in good agreement with real balloon volumes. The mean LV EF was 45 +/- 11% by Auto-EF, 45 +/- 11% by 3DE, 48 +/- 11% by Simpson's method, and 54 +/- 12% by CMR. Linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses showed good associations for semiautomatic methods with Simpson's method (Auto-EF, r = 0.85, bias = 3%, limits of agreement [LOA] = 12%; 3DE, r = 0.79, bias = 3%, LOA = 14%), as well as with CMR (Auto-EF, r = 0.74, bias = 9%, LOA = 17%; 3DE, r = 0.73, bias = 9%, LOA = 17%). Intra-and interobserver variability were 6% and 12% with Auto-EF and 8% and 11% with 3DE, respectively. Conclusions: Good correlations between semiautomatic echocardiographic parameters for assessment of LV volumes and EF could be observed when compared with Simpson's method or CMR. However, intertechnique agreement analysis of absolute LV volumes revealed considerable differences, with significant underestimation of volumes and EF with respect to CMR.
引用
收藏
页码:1017 / 1024
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Cardiac magnetic resonance assessment of left ventricular dilatation in chronic severe left-sided regurgitations: comparison with standard echocardiography
    Capron, T.
    Cautela, J.
    Scemama, U.
    Miola, C.
    Bartoli, A.
    Theron, A.
    Pinto, J.
    Porto, A.
    Collart, F.
    Lepidi, H.
    Bernard, M.
    Guye, M.
    Thuny, F.
    Avierinos, J-F
    Jacquier, A.
    DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL IMAGING, 2020, 101 (10) : 657 - 665
  • [22] The assessment of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction with magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography with automatic border detection: A comparative study
    Kuperstein, R
    Nachtomy, E
    Akselrod, S
    Vered, Z
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR DIAGNOSIS AND PROCEDURES, 1998, 15 (04): : 269 - 275
  • [23] Echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of left ventricular mass:: A comparative study
    Lladó, GP
    Carreras, F
    Borrás, X
    Llauger, J
    Palmer, J
    REVISTA ESPANOLA DE CARDIOLOGIA, 2001, 54 (01): : 22 - 28
  • [24] EVALUATION OF LEFT-VENTRICULAR VOLUMES MEASURED BY MAGNETIC-RESONANCE-IMAGING
    MOGELVANG, J
    THOMSEN, C
    MEHLSEN, J
    BRACKLE, G
    STUBGAARD, M
    HENRIKSEN, O
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 1986, 7 (12) : 1016 - 1021
  • [25] Comparison of magnetic resonance real-time imaging of left ventricular function with conventional magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography
    Schalla, S
    Nagel, E
    Lehmkuhl, H
    Klein, C
    Bornstedt, A
    Schnackenburg, B
    Schneider, U
    Fleck, E
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2001, 87 (01): : 95 - 99
  • [26] Semiautomatic Quantification of Left Ventricular Function by Two-Dimensional Feature Tracking Imaging Echocardiography. A Comparison Study with Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Di Bella, Gianluca
    Zito, Concetta
    Gaeta, Michele
    Piccione, Maurizio Cusma
    Minutoli, Fabio
    Donato, Rocco
    Recupero, Antonino
    Madaffari, Antonio
    Coglitore, Sebastiano
    Carerj, Scipione
    ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY-A JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ULTRASOUND AND ALLIED TECHNIQUES, 2010, 27 (07): : 791 - 797
  • [27] Comparison of cardiac computed tomography to magnetic resonance imaging: left ventricular volumes and function
    Groothuis, J. G. J.
    Fransen, M.
    Beek, A. M.
    Brinckman, S. L.
    Meijerink, M. R.
    Hofman, M. B. M.
    Van Kuijk, C.
    Van Rossum, A. C.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL SUPPLEMENTS, 2011, 13 (0A) : A77 - A77
  • [28] Accuracy of right ventricular size assessment: Echocardiography versus magnetic resonance imaging
    Lai, Wyman W.
    Rivera, Ernesto S.
    Saleeb, Susan
    Gauvreau, Kimberlee
    Powell, Andrew J.
    Geva, Tal
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2007, 49 (09) : 267A - 267A
  • [29] Assessment of left ventricular volumes by use of one-, two-, and three-dimensional echocardiography versus magnetic resonance imaging in healthy dogs
    Meyer, Judith
    Wefstaedt, Patrick
    Dziallas, Peter
    Beyerbach, Martin
    Nolte, Ingo
    Hungerbuehler, Stephan O.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH, 2013, 74 (09) : 1223 - 1230
  • [30] Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging versus echocardiography for assessment of cardiac involvement in pulmonary sarcoidosis
    Fandl, Teresa
    Pfaffenberger, Stefan
    Vonbank, Karin
    Marzluf, Beatrice
    Mascherbauer, Julia
    Binder, Thomas
    EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2012, 40