We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Studies
Semi-automated quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by real-time three-dimensional echocardiography.
Cardiovascular Ultrasound 2009 April 21
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that real-time three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography (RT3DE) gives more accurate and reproducible left ventricular (LV) volume and ejection fraction (EF) measurements than traditional two-dimensional methods. A new semi-automated tool (4DLVQ) for volume measurements in RT3DE has been developed. We sought to evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of this method compared to a 3D echo standard.
METHODS: LV end-diastolic volumes (EDV), end-systolic volumes (ESV), and EF measured using 4DLVQ were compared with a commercially available semi-automated analysis tool (TomTec 4D LV-Analysis ver. 2.2) in 35 patients. Repeated measurements were performed to investigate inter- and intra-observer variability.
RESULTS: Average analysis time of the new tool was 141s, significantly shorter than 261s using TomTec (p < 0.001). Bland Altman analysis revealed high agreement of measured EDV, ESV, and EF compared to TomTec (p = NS), with bias and 95% limits of agreement of 2.1 +/- 21 ml, -0.88 +/- 17 ml, and 1.6 +/- 11% for EDV, ESV, and EF respectively. Intra-observer variability of 4DLVQ vs. TomTec was 7.5 +/- 6.2 ml vs. 7.7 +/- 7.3 ml for EDV, 5.5 +/- 5.6 ml vs. 5.0 +/- 5.9 ml for ESV, and 3.0 +/- 2.7% vs. 2.1 +/- 2.0% for EF (p = NS). The inter-observer variability of 4DLVQ vs. TomTec was 9.0 +/- 5.9 ml vs. 17 +/- 6.3 ml for EDV (p < 0.05), 5.0 +/- 3.6 ml vs. 12 +/- 7.7 ml for ESV (p < 0.05), and 2.7 +/- 2.8% vs. 3.0 +/- 2.1% for EF (p = NS).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the new analysis tool gives rapid and reproducible measurements of LV volumes and EF, with good agreement compared to another RT3DE volume quantification tool.
METHODS: LV end-diastolic volumes (EDV), end-systolic volumes (ESV), and EF measured using 4DLVQ were compared with a commercially available semi-automated analysis tool (TomTec 4D LV-Analysis ver. 2.2) in 35 patients. Repeated measurements were performed to investigate inter- and intra-observer variability.
RESULTS: Average analysis time of the new tool was 141s, significantly shorter than 261s using TomTec (p < 0.001). Bland Altman analysis revealed high agreement of measured EDV, ESV, and EF compared to TomTec (p = NS), with bias and 95% limits of agreement of 2.1 +/- 21 ml, -0.88 +/- 17 ml, and 1.6 +/- 11% for EDV, ESV, and EF respectively. Intra-observer variability of 4DLVQ vs. TomTec was 7.5 +/- 6.2 ml vs. 7.7 +/- 7.3 ml for EDV, 5.5 +/- 5.6 ml vs. 5.0 +/- 5.9 ml for ESV, and 3.0 +/- 2.7% vs. 2.1 +/- 2.0% for EF (p = NS). The inter-observer variability of 4DLVQ vs. TomTec was 9.0 +/- 5.9 ml vs. 17 +/- 6.3 ml for EDV (p < 0.05), 5.0 +/- 3.6 ml vs. 12 +/- 7.7 ml for ESV (p < 0.05), and 2.7 +/- 2.8% vs. 3.0 +/- 2.1% for EF (p = NS).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the new analysis tool gives rapid and reproducible measurements of LV volumes and EF, with good agreement compared to another RT3DE volume quantification tool.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app