3D-echocardiography significantly underestimated left ventricular end-diastolic volume by 11 to 18 ml compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, primarily due to signal dropout and trabeculae appearance.
Cross-Sectional (n=70)
No
Does 3D-echocardiography accurately estimate regional and global left ventricular geometry compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging?
3D-echocardiography systematically underestimates left ventricular end-diastolic volume compared to CMR, primarily due to signal dropout and the appearance of trabeculae at the anterior and lateral regions.
Mean Difference: -16
Absolute Event Rate: 134% vs 150%
p-value: p=<0.0005
Aims: Left ventricular (LV) volumes estimated using three-dimensional echocardiography (3D-echo) have been reported to be smaller than those measured using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, but the underlying causes are not well-understood. We investigated differences in regional LV anatomy derived from these modalities and related subsequent findings to image characteristics. Methods and Results: Seventy participants (18 patients and 52 healthy participants) were imaged with 3D-echo and CMR (1 h apart). Three-dimensional left ventricular models were constructed at end-diastole (ED) and end-systole (ES) from both modalities using previously validated software, enabling the fusion of CMR with 3D-echo by rigid registration. Regional differences were evaluated as mean surface distances for each of the 17 American Heart Association segments, and by comparing contours superimposed on images from each modality. In comparison to CMR-derived models, 3D-echo models underestimated LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) by −16 ± 22, −1 ± 25, and −18 ± 24 ml across three independent analysis methods. Average surface distance errors were largest in the basal-anterolateral segment (11–15 mm) and smallest in the mid-inferoseptal segment (6 mm). Larger errors were associated with signal dropout in anterior regions and the appearance of trabeculae at the lateral wall. Conclusions: Fusion of CMR and 3D-echo provides insight into the causes of volume underestimation by 3D-echo. Systematic signal dropout and differences in appearances of trabeculae lead to discrepancies in the delineation of LV geometry at anterior and lateral regions. A better understanding of error sources across modalities may improve correlation of clinical indices between 3D-echo and CMR.
Zhao et al. (Mon,) conducted a cross-sectional in Left ventricular geometry assessment (n=70). 3D-echocardiography vs. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) imaging was evaluated on Left ventricular end-diastolic volume (EDV) (MD -16 ml, p=<0.0005). 3D-echocardiography significantly underestimated left ventricular end-diastolic volume by 11 to 18 ml compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, primarily due to signal dropout and trabeculae appearance.