Validation of a novel automated border-detection algorithm for rapid and accurate quantitation of left ventricular volumes based on three-dimensional echocardiography
Key result
The novel 4D AutoLVQ software showed excellent correlation with 4D TomTec for left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction (r=0.97-0.99, P<0.0001) and halved analysis time.
Why the study?
Does 4D AutoLVQ software provide accurate and rapid quantitation of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction compared to 4D TomTec and CMR in patients undergoing 3D echocardiography?
Population
103 patients with a wide range of left ventricular (LV) volumes
Comparison
4D AutoLVQ software for real-time… vs 4D TomTec software and cardiac magnetic resonance
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
May support faster LV quantitation in 3D echo labs; leaves open prospective validation against CMR.
Key Points
- To evaluate the accuracy, reproducibility, and analysis speed of a novel automated border-detection algorithm for left ventricular volume and ejection fraction quantitation using real-time three-dimensional echocardiography.
- Analyzed 103 patients with diverse left ventricular volumes using both 4D AutoLVQ and 4D TomTec software packages.
- Performed a side-by-side comparison of two-dimensional echocardiography, three-dimensional echocardiography, and cardiac magnetic resonance in a subset of 23 patients.
- 4D AutoLVQ showed strong correlation with 4D TomTec for end-diastolic volume (r = 0.98), end-systolic volume (r = 0.99), and ejection fraction (r = 0.97; P < 0.0001 for all), with small biases (5.2 mL, 2.9 mL, and -0.2%, respectively).
- Analysis time was reduced by half using 4D AutoLVQ with manual correction (1 min 52 s ± 30 s) compared to 4D TomTec (3 min 46 s ± 1 min 24 s).
- Both software tools demonstrated comparable accuracy against cardiac magnetic resonance without significant differences in bias for end-diastolic volume (-11.0 vs -8.3 mL), end-systolic volume (-9.1 vs -7.4 mL), or ejection fraction (2.9% vs 2.8%; P = NS for all).
Study Design
Type
Observational (n=103)
Structured PICO
Does 4D AutoLVQ software provide accurate and rapid quantitation of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction compared to 4D TomTec and CMR in patients undergoing 3D echocardiography?
P
Population
103 patients with a wide range of left ventricular (LV) volumes
I
Intervention
4D AutoLVQ software for real-time three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE)
C
Comparator
4D TomTec software and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)
O
Outcome
Accuracy and reproducibility of left ventricular (LV) volumes (end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume) and ejection fraction (EF) measurementssurrogate
Main Result
Effect estimate: r = 0.98 for EDV, 0.99 for ESV, 0.97 for EF
p-value: p=<0.0001
The novel 4D AutoLVQ software provides rapid and accurate quantitation of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction, halving analysis time compared to existing software while maintaining similar accuracy against CMR.
Cite This Study
Muraru et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Patients with a wide range of left ventricular volumes (n=103). 4D AutoLVQ software vs. 4D TomTec software and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) was evaluated on Correlation of left ventricular volumes (EDV, ESV) and ejection fraction (EF) between 4D AutoLVQ and 4D TomTec (r = 0.98 for EDV, 0.99 for ESV, 0.97 for EF, p=<0.0001). The novel 4D AutoLVQ software showed excellent correlation with 4D TomTec for left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction (r=0.97-0.99, P<0.0001) and halved analysis time.