• J Am Soc Echocardiogr · Jan 2012

    Comparative Study

    Automated quantification of mitral inflow and aortic outflow stroke volumes by three-dimensional real-time volume color-flow Doppler transthoracic echocardiography: comparison with pulsed-wave Doppler and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

    • Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, Shizhen Liu, Saurabh Datta, Michael Walls, Adrien Nitinunu, Thomas Van Houten, Nicholas A Tomson, Laura Vidmar, Bogdan Georgescu, Yang Wang, Seshadri Srinivasan, Nathalie De Michelis, Subha V Raman, Thomas Ryan, and Mani A Vannan.
    • The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
    • J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012 Jan 1;25(1):56-65.

    BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the feasibility, accuracy, and reproducibility of automated quantification of mitral inflow and aortic stroke volumes (SVs) using real-time three-dimensional volume color-flow Doppler transthoracic echocardiography (RT-VCFD), with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging as the reference method.MethodsIn 44 patients (86% of the screened patients) without valvular disease, RT-VCFD, CMR left ventricular short-axis cines and aortic phase-contrast flow measurement and two-dimensional (2D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) were performed. Dedicated software was used to automatically measure mitral inflow and aortic SVs with RT-VCFD. CMR total SV was calculated using planimetry of short-axis slices and aortic SV by phase-contrast imaging. SVs by 2D TTE were computed in the conventional manner.ResultsThe mean age of the included patients was 40 ± 16 years, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61 ± 9%. Automated flow measurements were feasible in all study patients. Mitral inflow SV by 2D TTE and RT-VCFD were 85.0 ± 21.5 and 94.5 ± 22.0 mL, respectively, while total SV by CMR was 95.6 ± 22.7 mL (P < .001, analysis of variance). On post hoc analysis, mitral inflow SV by RT-VCFD was not different from the CMR value (P = .99), while SV on 2D TTE was underestimated (P = .001). The respective aortic SVs were 82.8 ± 22.3, 94.2 ± 22.3, and 93.4 ± 24.6 mL (P < .001). On post hoc analysis, aortic SV by RT-VCFD was not different from the CMR value (P = .99), while SV on 2D TTE was underestimated (P = .006). The interobserver variability for SV measurements was significantly worse for 2D TTE compared with RT-VCFD.ConclusionsRT-VCFD imaging with an automated quantification algorithm is feasible, accurate, and reproducible for the measurement of mitral inflow and aortic SVs and is superior to manual 2D TTE-based measurements. The rapid and automated measurements make this technique practical in the clinical setting to measure and report SVs routinely where the acoustic window will allow it, which was 86% in our study.Copyright © 2012 American Society of Echocardiography. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.