Key result
Echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction using an automated 3D algorithm showed strong correlation with cardiac magnetic resonance (r = 0.824, p < 0.0001).
Why the study?
Automated 3D algorithms may provide quick and accurate left ventricular function assessment without the limitations of visual estimation or manual measurements, but their feasibility and correlation with established methods required assessment.
Does an automated 3D echocardiography algorithm accurately measure left ventricular function compared to CMR and LVA in patients undergoing TTE?
Cross-Sectional (n=198)
No
Does an automated 3D echocardiography algorithm accurately measure left ventricular function compared to CMR and LVA in patients undergoing TTE?
An automated 3D echocardiography algorithm provides reliable and reproducible assessment of left ventricular function comparable to CMR and invasive angiography, even for inexperienced clinicians.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Automated 3D LV analysis is feasible for beginners and experts; leaves open impact on outcomes and workflow before routine adoption.
AIMS: Echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular function using a user-friendly automated three-dimensional algorithm is highly attractive as it promises quick and accurate diagnosis, circumventing limitations associated with visual estimation or manual biplane measurements. We sought to assess the feasibility and correlation of such automated analysis with clinically established methods. METHODS: A total of 198 patients undergoing transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) with assessment of left ventricular parameters by automated software algorithm (Philips 3D-Heartmodel; 3D-HM) which additionally had either left ventricular angiography (LVA) or cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) within 24 h of the TTE examination were analyzed. Left ventricular parameters (left ventricular end-diastolic volume, LVEDV, left ventricular end-systolic volume, LVESV as well as left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF) were compared between 3D-HM, CMR and LVA. RESULTS: Correlation of left ventricular measurements was overall good to excellent and stronger for CMR (EF r = 0.824) than for LVA (EF r = 0.746). Unexperienced and expert clinicians yielded comparable good results. For CMR, highest correlation was detected in patients with BMI < 25 and excellent image quality. High agreement was seen between 3D-HM and CMR or LVA when stratifying patients according to heart failure categories. CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiographic quantification of left ventricular parameters using a software-based algorithm correlated well with established invasive and non-invasive modalities in the clinical setting, even for unexperienced clinicians. Such automated approaches are promising as they allow a reliable, more observer-independent as well as reproducible assessment of left ventricular function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nicol et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Left ventricular function assessment (n=198). Automated 3D echocardiography algorithm (3D-Heartmodel) vs. Cardiac magnetic resonance and left ventricular angiography was evaluated on Correlation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 3D-Heartmodel and cardiac magnetic resonance (r = 0.824, p=<0.0001). Echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction using an automated 3D algorithm showed strong correlation with cardiac magnetic resonance (r = 0.824, p < 0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: