Key result
Three-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography showed poor inter-vendor agreement between Artida and VividE9 systems for radial, circumferential, and area strain measurements (P<0.001).
Why the study?
Is there inter-vendor consistency in 3D left ventricular global strain values obtained using Artida versus VividE9 ultrasound systems?
Population
60 patients with a wide range of LV end-diastolic volumes and ejection fractions, mean age 38 ± 12 years…
Comparison
3D speckle-tracking echocardiography using… vs 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography using…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Clinicians should not interchange 3D strain values across vendors; leaves open need for standardization and vendor-specific norms.
Cross-Sectional (n=60)
Is there inter-vendor consistency in 3D left ventricular global strain values obtained using Artida versus VividE9 ultrasound systems?
Badano et al. (2012) conducted a cross-sectional in Patients with a wide range of LV end-diastolic volumes and ejection fractions (n=60). 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography (Artida) vs. 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography (VividE9) was evaluated on Inter-vendor consistency of 3D LV global strain values. Three-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography showed poor inter-vendor agreement between Artida and VividE9 systems for radial, circumferential, and area strain measurements (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: