Suppr超能文献

不同供应商间的变异性对左心室机械弥散评估的影响。

Impact of inter-vendor variability on evaluation of left ventricular mechanical dispersion.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, The Prince Charles Hospital, Queensland, Australia.

School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.

出版信息

Echocardiography. 2022 Jan;39(1):54-64. doi: 10.1111/echo.15270. Epub 2021 Dec 6.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Left ventricular mechanical dispersion (LVMD) is a novel speckle tracking parameter for prognostic assessment of arrhythmic risk prediction. There is growing evidence to support its use in a variety of cardiomyopathic processes. There is paucity of data addressing any presence of inter-vendor discrepancies for LVMD. The aim of this study was to assess inter-vendor variability of LVMD in vendor specific software (VSS) and vendor independent software (VIS) in subjects with preserved and reduced left ventricular function.

METHODS

Fifty-nine subjects (14 normal subjects and 45 subjects with cardiac disease) were recruited and 2D speckle tracking echocardiographic images were acquired on two different ultrasound machines (GE and Philips). LVMD was measured by two different VSS (EchoPac GE and QLAB Philips) and one VIS (TomTec Arena).

RESULTS

There was significant bias and wide limits of agreement (LOA) in the overall cohort observed between two different VSS (17.6 ms; LOA: -29.6 to 64.8; r: .47). There was acceptable bias and narrower LOA with good agreement for LVMD between images obtained on different vendors when performed on VIS (-3.1 ms; LOA: -27.6 to 21.4; r: .75). QLAB LVMD was consistently higher than GE LVMD and TomTec LVMD in both preserved and reduced left ventricular function. LVMD measurements have high intra-vendor reproducibility with excellent inter and intra-observer agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

There was acceptable bias and narrower LOA for LVMD assessment on a VIS. Inter-vendor variability exists for LVMD assessment between VSS. Serial measurements of LVMD should be performed using a single vendor for consistent and reliable results.

摘要

目的

左心室机械弥散(LVMD)是一种用于预测心律失常风险的新型斑点追踪参数。越来越多的证据支持其在各种心肌病过程中的应用。关于 LVMD 是否存在不同供应商之间的差异,目前数据很少。本研究旨在评估在具有保留和降低左心室功能的患者中,供应商特定软件(VSS)和供应商独立软件(VIS)中 LVMD 的供应商间变异性。

方法

招募了 59 名受试者(14 名正常受试者和 45 名心脏病患者),并在两台不同的超声机(GE 和 Philips)上采集 2D 斑点追踪超声心动图图像。LVMD 通过两种不同的 VSS(EchoPac GE 和 QLAB Philips)和一种 VIS(TomTec Arena)进行测量。

结果

在整个队列中,两种不同的 VSS 之间观察到明显的偏差和广泛的一致性界限(LOA)(17.6 ms;LOA:-29.6 至 64.8;r:.47)。当在 VIS 上进行时,不同供应商获得的图像之间的 LVMD 具有可接受的偏差和更窄的 LOA,并且具有良好的一致性(-3.1 ms;LOA:-27.6 至 21.4;r:.75)。在保留和降低左心室功能的情况下,QLAB LVMD 始终高于 GE LVMD 和 TomTec LVMD。LVMD 测量具有较高的内部供应商可重复性,具有极好的内部和内部观察者一致性。

结论

在 VIS 上进行 LVMD 评估时存在可接受的偏差和更窄的 LOA。在 VSS 之间存在 LVMD 评估的供应商间变异性。为了获得一致和可靠的结果,应使用单个供应商进行 LVMD 的连续测量。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验