Why the study?
Does the 4DLVQ semi-automated tool provide accurate and reproducible LV volume and EF measurements compared to TomTec in patients undergoing RT3DE?
Does the 4DLVQ semi-automated tool provide accurate and reproducible LV volume and EF measurements compared to TomTec in patients undergoing RT3DE?
The 4DLVQ tool provides faster and highly reproducible measurements of LV volumes and EF compared to existing RT3DE quantification tools.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that real-time three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography (RT3DE) gives more accurate and reproducible left ventricular (LV) volume and ejection fraction (EF) measurements than traditional two-dimensional methods. A new semi-automated tool (4DLVQ) for volume measurements in RT3DE has been developed. We sought to evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of this method compared to a 3D echo standard. METHODS: LV end-diastolic volumes (EDV), end-systolic volumes (ESV), and EF measured using 4DLVQ were compared with a commercially available semi-automated analysis tool (TomTec 4D LV-Analysis ver. 2.2) in 35 patients. Repeated measurements were performed to investigate inter- and intra-observer variability. RESULTS: Average analysis time of the new tool was 141s, significantly shorter than 261s using TomTec (p < 0.001). Bland Altman analysis revealed high agreement of measured EDV, ESV, and EF compared to TomTec (p = NS), with bias and 95% limits of agreement of 2.1 +/- 21 ml, -0.88 +/- 17 ml, and 1.6 +/- 11% for EDV, ESV, and EF respectively. Intra-observer variability of 4DLVQ vs. TomTec was 7.5 +/- 6.2 ml vs. 7.7 +/- 7.3 ml for EDV, 5.5 +/- 5.6 ml vs. 5.0 +/- 5.9 ml for ESV, and 3.0 +/- 2.7% vs. 2.1 +/- 2.0% for EF (p = NS). The inter-observer variability of 4DLVQ vs. TomTec was 9.0 +/- 5.9 ml vs. 17 +/- 6.3 ml for EDV (p < 0.05), 5.0 +/- 3.6 ml vs. 12 +/- 7.7 ml for ESV (p < 0.05), and 2.7 +/- 2.8% vs. 3.0 +/- 2.1% for EF (p = NS). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the new analysis tool gives rapid and reproducible measurements of LV volumes and EF, with good agreement compared to another RT3DE volume quantification tool.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hansegård et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: