PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 2, 2014European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging18 citationsOpen Access

Guidance for accurate and consistent tissue Doppler velocity measurement: comparison of echocardiographic methods using a simple vendor-independent method for local validation

View Full Paper
NDNiti M. DhutiaMZMassoud ZolgharniKWKeith Willson

Key Result

Tissue Doppler velocity measurement using the middle edge agreed with optical assessment (discrepancy -0.20 cm/s; 95% CI -0.44 to 0.03; P=0.11), whereas outer and inner edges showed significant bias.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=25)

Structured PICO

Which tissue Doppler measurement convention provides the most accurate and consistent tissue velocity measurements compared to gold standards?

P
Population
25 patients undergoing echocardiographic velocity measurements to assess the consistency of tissue Doppler and speckle tracking.
E
Exposure
Tissue Doppler velocity measurement (outer, middle, and inner edge conventions) and speckle tracking
C
Comparator
M-mode (in vivo gold standard) and optical assessment (in vitro gold standard)
O
Outcome
Consistency of tissue velocity measurements (s', e', and a' velocities)surrogate

The statistically modal velocity at the center of the spectral pulsed wave tissue Doppler envelope most closely represents true tissue velocity, providing a standard for consistent measurement.

Main Result

Mean Difference: -0.2 (95% CI -0.44–0.03)

p-value: p=0.11

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Variability has been described between different echo machines and different modalities when measuring tissue velocities. We assessed the consistency of tissue velocity measurements across different modalities and different manufacturers in an in vitro model and in patients. Furthermore, we present freely available software tools to repeat these evaluations. METHODS AND RESULTS: We constructed a simple setup to generate reproducible motion and used it to compare velocities measured using three echocardiographic modalities: M-mode, speckle tracking, and tissue Doppler, with a straightforward, non-ultrasound, optical gold standard. In the clinical phase, 25 patients underwent M-mode, speckle tracking, and tissue Doppler measurements of s', e', and a' velocities. In vitro, the M-mode and speckle tracking velocities agreed with optical assessment. Of the three possible tissue Doppler measurement conventions (outer, middle, and inner edge) only the middle agreed with optical assessment (discrepancy -0.20 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.03) cm/s, P = 0.11, outer +5.19 (4.65 to 5.73) cm/s, P < 0.0001, inner -6.26 (-6.87 to -5.65) cm/s, P < 0.0001). A similar pattern occurred across all four studied manufacturers. M-mode was therefore chosen as the in vivo gold standard. Clinical measurements of s' velocities by speckle tracking and the middle line of the tissue Doppler showed concordance with M-mode, while the outer line overestimated significantly (+1.27(0.96 to 1.59) cm/s, P < 0.0001) and the inner line underestimated (-1.82 (-2.11 to -1.52) cm/s, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiographic velocity measurements can be more consistent than previously suspected. The statistically modal velocity, found at the centre of the spectral pulsed wave tissue Doppler envelope, most closely represents true tissue velocity. This article includes downloadable, vendor-independent software enabling calibration of echocardiographic machines using a simple, inexpensive in vitro setup.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Dhutia et al. (2014) reported an observational. Tissue Doppler velocity measurement (middle edge) vs. Optical assessment (in vitro) and M-mode (in vivo) was evaluated on Discrepancy in velocity measurement compared to optical assessment (MD -0.20 cm/s, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.03, p=0.11). Tissue Doppler velocity measurement using the middle edge agreed with optical assessment (discrepancy -0.20 cm/s; 95% CI -0.44 to 0.03; P=0.11), whereas outer and inner edges showed significant bias.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a21aa38582b7ad9ebabe3e0https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeu040
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper