Zhao Debbie, Quill Gina M, Gilbert Kathleen, Wang Vicky Y, Houle Helene C, Legget Malcolm E, Ruygrok Peter N, Doughty Robert N, Pedrosa João, D'hooge Jan, Young Alistair A, Nash Martyn P
Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Siemens Healthineers, Issaquah, WA, United States.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Sep 20;8:728205. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.728205. eCollection 2021.
Left ventricular (LV) volumes estimated using three-dimensional echocardiography (3D-echo) have been reported to be smaller than those measured using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, but the underlying causes are not well-understood. We investigated differences in regional LV anatomy derived from these modalities and related subsequent findings to image characteristics. Seventy participants (18 patients and 52 healthy participants) were imaged with 3D-echo and CMR (<1 h apart). Three-dimensional left ventricular models were constructed at end-diastole (ED) and end-systole (ES) from both modalities using previously validated software, enabling the fusion of CMR with 3D-echo by rigid registration. Regional differences were evaluated as mean surface distances for each of the 17 American Heart Association segments, and by comparing contours superimposed on images from each modality. In comparison to CMR-derived models, 3D-echo models underestimated LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) by -16 ± 22, -1 ± 25, and -18 ± 24 ml across three independent analysis methods. Average surface distance errors were largest in the basal-anterolateral segment (11-15 mm) and smallest in the mid-inferoseptal segment (6 mm). Larger errors were associated with signal dropout in anterior regions and the appearance of trabeculae at the lateral wall. Fusion of CMR and 3D-echo provides insight into the causes of volume underestimation by 3D-echo. Systematic signal dropout and differences in appearances of trabeculae lead to discrepancies in the delineation of LV geometry at anterior and lateral regions. A better understanding of error sources across modalities may improve correlation of clinical indices between 3D-echo and CMR.
据报道,使用三维超声心动图(3D-echo)估算的左心室(LV)容积小于使用心脏磁共振(CMR)成像测量的容积,但其潜在原因尚不清楚。我们研究了源自这些检查方式的左心室局部解剖结构差异,并将后续结果与图像特征相关联。70名参与者(18名患者和52名健康参与者)接受了3D-echo和CMR检查(间隔<1小时)。使用先前验证的软件在舒张末期(ED)和收缩末期(ES)构建了两种检查方式的三维左心室模型,通过刚性配准实现CMR与3D-echo的融合。通过评估美国心脏协会17个节段中每个节段的平均表面距离,并比较叠加在每种检查方式图像上的轮廓来评估局部差异。与CMR衍生模型相比,在三种独立分析方法中,3D-echo模型低估左心室舒张末期容积(EDV)分别为-16±22、-1±25和-18±24 ml。平均表面距离误差在基底前外侧节段最大(11-15 mm),在中下部间隔节段最小(6 mm)。较大的误差与前部区域的信号丢失以及侧壁小梁的出现有关。CMR和3D-echo的融合有助于深入了解3D-echo导致容积低估的原因。系统性信号丢失和小梁外观差异导致前部和外侧区域左心室几何形状描绘出现差异。更好地理解不同检查方式的误差来源可能会改善3D-echo与CMR之间临床指标的相关性。