Key result
Fully automated 3DE RV quantification software significantly underestimated RV end-diastolic volume (bias -12.6 mL, P<0.001) compared with CMR, but successfully approximated RVEF.
Why the study?
The accuracy and reproducibility of a novel, fully automated 3D echocardiography software for right ventricular quantification needed evaluation against CMR and semi-automated software.
Does fully automated 3DE right ventricular quantification software accurately measure right ventricular volumes and ejection fraction compared with cardiac magnetic resonance in patients undergoing both examinations?
Cross-Sectional (n=100)
Does fully automated 3DE right ventricular quantification software accurately measure right ventricular volumes and ejection fraction compared with cardiac magnetic resonance in patients undergoing both examinations?
Fully automated 3DE RV quantification software provides rapid and reproducible RVEF measurements comparable to CMR, despite underestimating RV volumes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support rapid RVEF monitoring by automated 3DE; leaves open prospective validation for volumes and outcomes.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy and reproducibility of a novel, fully automated 3D echocardiography (3DE) right ventricular (RV) quantification software compared with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and semi-automated 3DE RV quantification software. METHODS AND RESULTS: RV volumes and the RV ejection fraction (RVEF) were measured using a fully automated software (Philips), a semi-automated software (TomTec), and CMR in 100 patients who had undergone both CMR and 3DE examinations on the same day. The feasibility of the fully automated software was 91%. Although the fully automated software, without any manual editing, significantly underestimated RV end-diastolic volume (bias: -12.6 mL, P < 0.001) and stroke volume (-5.1 mL, P < 0.001) compared with CMR, there were good correlations between the two modalities (r = 0.82 and 0.78). No significant differences in RVEF between the fully automated software and CMR were observed, and there was a fair correlation (r = 0.72). The RVEF determined by the semi-automated software was significantly larger than that by CMR or the fully automated software (P < 0.001). The fully automated software had a shorter analysis time compared with the semi-automated software (15 s vs. 120 s, P < 0.001) and had a good reproducibility. CONCLUSION: A novel, fully automated 3DE RV quantification software underestimated RV volumes but successfully approximated RVEF when compared with CMR. No inferiority of this software was observed when compared with the semi-automated software. Rapid analysis and higher reproducibility also support the routine adoption of this method in the daily clinical workflow.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Otani et al. (2019) reported a cross-sectional. Fully automated 3D echocardiography right ventricular quantification software vs. Cardiac magnetic resonance and semi-automated quantification software was evaluated on RV end-diastolic volume compared with CMR (bias -12.6 mL, p=<0.001). Fully automated 3DE RV quantification software significantly underestimated RV end-diastolic volume (bias -12.6 mL, P<0.001) compared with CMR, but successfully approximated RVEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: