Key result
Automated 3D RV quantification with manual editing achieves ~0.94 correlation with CMR for measuring RVEF.
Why the study?
Direct comparison between a novel, fully automated right ventricular software for three-dimensional quantification of RV volumes and function and CMR was limited.
Does fully automated 3D right ventricular quantification software accurately measure RV volumes and ejection fraction compared to CMR in patients undergoing echocardiography?
Observational (n=149)
Single-blind
No
Does fully automated 3D right ventricular quantification software accurately measure RV volumes and ejection fraction compared to CMR in patients undergoing echocardiography?
Effect estimate: r = 0.941
p-value: p=<0.0001
The novel fully automated 3D echocardiography software for right ventricular quantification is feasible and highly reproducible, showing strong correlation with CMR, especially when manual editing is applied.
Supports automated RV quantification in echocardiography; leaves open whether it can replace CMR in clinical practice.
Background: A novel, fully automated right ventricular (RV) software for three-dimensional quantification of RV volumes and function was developed. The direct comparison of the software performance with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) was limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test the feasibility, accuracy, and reproducibility of a fully automated RV quantification software against CMR imaging as a reference. Methods: A total of 170 patients who underwent both CMR and three-dimensional echocardiography were enrolled. RV end-diastolic volume (RVEDV), RV end-systolic volume (RVESV), and RV ejection fraction (RVEF) were obtained using fully automated three-dimensional RV quantification software and compared with a CMR reference. For inter-technical agreement, Spearman correlation and Bland–Altman analysis were used. Results: The fully automated RV quantification software was feasible in 149 patients. RVEDV and RVESV were underestimated, and RVEF was overestimated compared with CMR values. RV measurements obtained from the manual editing method correlated better with CMR values than that without manual editing (RVEDV, 0.924 vs. 0.794: RVESV, 0.955 vs. 0.854; RVEF, 0.941 vs. 0.781 respectively, all p < 0.0001) with less bias and narrower limit of agreement (LOA). The bias and LOA for RV volumes and EF using the automated software without and with manual editing were greater in patients with severely impaired RV function or low frame rate than those with normal and mild impaired RV function, or high frame rate. The fully automated RV three-dimensional measurements were highly reproducible. Conclusion: The novel fully automated RV software shows good feasibility and reproducibility, and the measurements had a high correlation with CMR values. These findings support the routine application of the novel 3D automated RV software in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmad et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Various cardiac conditions (including dilated cardiomyopathy, ischemic heart disease) and healthy subjects (n=149). Fully automated 3D right ventricular quantification software (with manual editing) vs. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) was evaluated on Correlation of right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) between 3D auto RV with manual editing and CMR (r = 0.941, p=<0.0001). The fully automated 3D right ventricular quantification software with manual editing showed a high correlation with cardiac magnetic resonance for measuring right ventricular ejection fraction (r = 0.941).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: