Cargando…

Optimal threshold of three-dimensional echocardiographic fully automated software for quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction: Comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance disk-area summation method and feature tracking method

AIMS: Novel fully automated left chamber quantification software for three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) has a potential for reliable measurement of left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the optimal setting of global LV endocardial border threshold has not been se...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chien-Chia Wu, Victor, Kitano, Tetuji, Nabeshima, Yosuke, Otani, Kyoko, Chu, Pao-Hsien, Takeuchi, Masaaki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6349335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30689657
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211154
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: Novel fully automated left chamber quantification software for three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) has a potential for reliable measurement of left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the optimal setting of global LV endocardial border threshold has not been settled. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed LV volumes and LVEF analysis using fully automated left chamber quantification software (Dynamic HeartModel(A.I.), Philips Medical Systems) in 65 patients who had undergone both 3DE and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) examinations on the same day. We recorded LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) according to the change in LV global border threshold settings from 0-point to 100-point with each increment of 10-point. These values were compared to the corresponding values of CMR with disk-area summation method and feature tracking (FT) method. Coverage probability (CP) was calculated as an index of accuracy and reliability. Fully automated software provided LV volumes and LVEF in 57 patients (Feasibility: 88%). LVEDV and LVESV increased steadily according to the increase in border threshold and reached minimal bias when border threshold setting was 80 against CMR disk-summation method and 90 against CMR FT method. Corresponding CP of LVEF was 0.74 and 0.84 against disk-area summation method and FT method. CONCLUSIONS: With CMR values as a reference, LV endocardial border threshold value can be set around 80 to 90 with the same number of LV end-diastole and end-systole threshold to approximate LVEDV, LVESV and LVEF with clinically acceptable CP values of LVEF.