猪心脏模型中左右心室的容积分析：三维超声心动图、磁共振成像与心血管造影术的比较

Volumetric analysis of the right and left ventricle in a porcine heart model: comparison of three-dimensional echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging and angiocardiography.

作者信息

Heusch A, Koch J A, Krogmann O N, Korbmacher B, Bourgeois M

机构信息

Department of Paediatric Cardiology, Heinrich-Heine-University, Moorenstr. 5, PB: 101007, D-40001, Düsseldorf, Germany.

出版信息

Eur J Ultrasound. 1999 Jul;9(3):245-55. doi: 10.1016/s0929-8266(99)00032-4.

DOI:10.1016/s0929-8266(99)00032-4

PMID:10657599

Abstract

UNLABELLED

Three-dimensional echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging allow the volumetric analysis of ventricular volumes independent of geometric assumptions. The aim of the study was to compare these methods and the common angiocardiography in a cardiac model of known volume.

METHODS/MATERIALS: Right and left ventricular (RV, LV-) volumes were measured in a specific animal model directly ('true volume') and with different imaging techniques. Three-dimensional echocardiography (3D-Echo) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), both of which permit a volume estimation without necessitating geometric assumptions, and angiocardiographic volumetry which is based on the Simpson rule were used in this study.

RESULTS

The best results were achieved with MRI (RV: r(2)=0.99, mean difference: -1. 9+/-3.3%; LV: difference r(2)=0.99,: 2.9+/-5.0%). Likewise, 3D-Echo showed a very good correlation with the true volumes (RV: r(2)=0.93, difference: 9.3+/-6.3%; LV r(2)=0.96, difference: 4.8+/-9.9%). The greatest deviations were observed during angiocardiographic volumetry (LV: r(2)=0.98; difference: 14.4+/-9.2%), particularly when measuring the right ventricle (RV: r(2)=0.82, difference: 57. 9+/-40.1%). Consequently, the direct comparison between 3D-Echo and the other methods yielded the best correspondence with MRI (RV: Bias: 3.7 ml, limits of agreement: 7.7 ml; LV: Bias: 3.7 ml, limits of agreement: 4.9 ml). In contrast, the differences between 3D-Echo and angiocardiography were marked (RV: Bias: 25.5 ml, limits of agreement: 11.1 ml; LV: Bias: 8.7 ml, limits of agreement: 13.2 ml).

CONCLUSION

In a porcine cardiac model, 3D-Echo permits a relatively precise measurement of ventricular volumes with a slight under-estimation. MRI yielded the most precise volumetry, and the correlation between 3D-Echo and MRI was quite good. Particularly for the right ventricle, the angiocardiographic measurement was attached with the greatest error and thus appears ill-suited for the volumetry of geometrically more complex ventricles.

摘要

未标注

三维超声心动图和磁共振成像可独立于几何假设对心室容积进行容积分析。本研究的目的是在已知容积的心脏模型中比较这些方法与普通心血管造影术。

方法/材料：在特定动物模型中直接测量右心室和左心室（RV、LV）容积（“真实容积”），并采用不同成像技术进行测量。本研究使用了三维超声心动图（3D-Echo）和磁共振成像（MRI），这两种方法均可在无需几何假设的情况下进行容积估计，还使用了基于辛普森法则的心血管造影容积测量法。

结果

MRI取得了最佳结果（右心室：r² = 0.99，平均差异：-1.9±3.3%；左心室：差异r² = 0.99，：2.9±5.0%）。同样，3D-Echo与真实容积显示出非常好的相关性（右心室：r² = 0.93，差异：9.3±6.3%；左心室r² = 0.96，差异：4.8±9.9%）。在心血管造影容积测量过程中观察到最大偏差（左心室：r² = 0.98；差异：14.4±9.2%），尤其是在测量右心室时（右心室：r² = 0.82，差异：57.9±40.1%）。因此，3D-Echo与其他方法之间的直接比较显示与MRI的一致性最佳（右心室：偏差：3.7 ml，一致性界限：7.7 ml；左心室：偏差：3.7 ml，一致性界限：4.9 ml）。相比之下，3D-Echo与心血管造影术之间的差异明显（右心室：偏差：25.5 ml，一致性界限：11.1 ml；左心室：偏差：8.7 ml，一致性界限：13.2 ml）。