Université Lille Nord de France, GCS-Groupement des Hôpitaux de l'Institut Catholique de Lille, Laboratoire D'échocardiographie, Service de Cardiologie Nord, Centre des Valvulopathies, Faculté Libre de Médecine, Université Catholique de Lille, Lille, France.
Université Lille Nord de France, GCS-Groupement des Hôpitaux de l'Institut Catholique de Lille, Département D'imagerie Médicale, Université Catholique de Lille, Lille, France.
Am Heart J. 2018 Aug;202:127-136. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.05.013. Epub 2018 May 27.
Whether echocardiography platform and analysis software impact left ventricular (LV) volumes, ejection fraction (EF), and stroke volume (SV) by transthoracic tridimensional echocardiography (3DE) has not yet been assessed. Hence, our aim was to compare 3DE LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (EDV and ESV), LVEF, and SV obtained with echocardiography platform from 2 different manufacturers.
3DE was performed in 84 patients (65% of screened consecutive patients), with equipment from 2 different manufacturers, with subsequent off-line postprocessing to obtain parameters of LV function and size (Philips QLAB 3DQ and General Electric EchoPAC 4D autoLVQ). Twenty-five patients with clinical indication for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging served as a validation subgroup.
LVEDV and LVESV from 2 vendors were highly correlated (r = 0.93), but compared with 4D autoLVQ, the use of Qlab 3DQ resulted in lower LVEDV and LVESV (bias: 11 mL, limits of agreement: -25 to +47 and bias: 6 mL, limits of agreement: -22 to +34, respectively). The agreement between LVEF values of each software was poor (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.62) despite no or minimal bias. SVs were also lower with Qlab 3DQ advanced compared with 4D autoLVQ, and both were poorly correlated (r = 0.66). Consistently, the underestimation of LVEDV, LVESV, and SV by 3DE compared with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was more pronounced with Philips QLAB 3DQ advanced than with 4D autoLVQ.
The echocardiography platform and analysis software significantly affect the values of LV parameters obtained by 3DE. Intervendor standardization and improvements in 3DE modalities are needed to broaden the use of LV parameters obtained by 3DE in clinical practice.
经胸三维超声心动图(3DE)的超声心动图平台和分析软件是否会影响左心室(LV)容积、射血分数(EF)和每搏输出量(SV)尚未评估。因此,我们的目的是比较来自 2 个不同制造商的超声心动图平台获得的 3DE LV 舒张末期和收缩末期容积(EDV 和 ESV)、LVEF 和 SV。
对 84 例患者(连续筛查患者的 65%)进行了 3DE 检查,设备来自 2 个不同的制造商,随后进行离线后处理以获得 LV 功能和大小参数(飞利浦 QLAB 3DQ 和通用电气 EchoPAC 4D autoLVQ)。25 例有心脏磁共振成像临床适应证的患者作为验证亚组。
来自 2 个供应商的 LVEDV 和 LVESV 高度相关(r=0.93),但与 4D autoLVQ 相比,使用 Qlab 3DQ 会导致 LVEDV 和 LVESV 降低(偏差:11mL,一致性界限:-25 至+47 和偏差:6mL,一致性界限:-22 至+34)。尽管没有或最小的偏差,但每种软件的 LVEF 值之间的一致性很差(组内相关系数 0.62)。与 4D autoLVQ 相比,使用 Qlab 3DQ 高级版的 SV 也较低,且相关性较差(r=0.66)。一致地,与心脏磁共振成像相比,3DE 对 LVEDV、LVESV 和 SV 的低估在使用飞利浦 QLAB 3DQ 高级版时比使用 4D autoLVQ 更明显。
超声心动图平台和分析软件显著影响 3DE 获得的 LV 参数值。需要进行供应商间的标准化和 3DE 方式的改进,以扩大 3DE 获得的 LV 参数在临床实践中的应用。