Comparing Two-Dimensional Ellipsoid Model Variants in Estimating Three-Dimensional Echocardiographic Right Ventricular Volume in Dogs

IF 2.2 2区农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES

Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2025-08-27 DOI:10.1111/jvim.70232

Robert Ciardullo, Brittany E. Tagg, Elisabeth Nesta, Shana B. Mintz, Romain Pariaut, Weihow Hsue

{"title":"Comparing Two-Dimensional Ellipsoid Model Variants in Estimating Three-Dimensional Echocardiographic Right Ventricular Volume in Dogs","authors":"Robert Ciardullo, Brittany E. Tagg, Elisabeth Nesta, Shana B. Mintz, Romain Pariaut, Weihow Hsue","doi":"10.1111/jvim.70232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Determining right ventricular (RV) volume typically requires three-dimensional imaging due to its complex shape. The ellipsoid model offers a two-dimensional alternative, employing area- or linear-based formulas with further variations depending on the echocardiographic views used for measurements.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Hypothesis/Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To identify which ellipsoid model variant best agrees with real-time three-dimensional echocardiography (RT3D) as a reference standard and to assess within-day reproducibility.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Animals</h3>\n \n <p>Sixty-seven client-owned dogs (23 normal, 44 with right-sided heart diseases) underwent echocardiograms, with 20 normal dogs receiving a repeat examination.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Prospective method comparison study. Body weight-indexed end-diastolic (iEDV) and end-systolic volumes (iESV) were calculated across eight ellipsoid model variants. Agreement was assessed using concordance correlation coefficients (<i>r</i><sub>c</sub>) and Bland–Altman analysis, while within-day reproducibility was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and reproducibility coefficients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The area- and linear-based variants using RV parameters from the left apical four-chamber view and perpendicular diameter from the right parasternal short-axis view (AEM<sub>A4C-RPS</sub> and LEM<sub>A4C-RPS</sub>, respectively) were the only methods to achieve moderate agreement with RT3D (<i>r</i><sub>c</sub> > 0.90). The AEM<sub>A4C-RPS</sub> showed no significant systematic bias for iEDV (median of the differences [95% confidence interval]: 0.09 [0.00–0.13]), while LEM<sub>A4C-RPS</sub> exhibited no significant systematic bias for iEDV (0.03 [−0.02–0.08]) and iESV (0.04 [−0.01–0.12]), though biases increased at larger volumes. Both methods demonstrated good reproducibility (ICC > 0.75), with iESV reproducibility significantly greater than that of methods using RV parameters from the right parasternal long-axis four-chamber view.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions and Clinical Importance</h3>\n \n <p>The AEM<sub>A4C-RPS</sub> and LEM<sub>A4C-RPS</sub> offer practical RV volume estimates.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49958,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine","volume":"39 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jvim.70232","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jvim.70232","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Determining right ventricular (RV) volume typically requires three-dimensional imaging due to its complex shape. The ellipsoid model offers a two-dimensional alternative, employing area- or linear-based formulas with further variations depending on the echocardiographic views used for measurements.

Hypothesis/Objectives

To identify which ellipsoid model variant best agrees with real-time three-dimensional echocardiography (RT3D) as a reference standard and to assess within-day reproducibility.

Animals

Sixty-seven client-owned dogs (23 normal, 44 with right-sided heart diseases) underwent echocardiograms, with 20 normal dogs receiving a repeat examination.

Methods

Prospective method comparison study. Body weight-indexed end-diastolic (iEDV) and end-systolic volumes (iESV) were calculated across eight ellipsoid model variants. Agreement was assessed using concordance correlation coefficients (r_c) and Bland–Altman analysis, while within-day reproducibility was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and reproducibility coefficients.

Results

The area- and linear-based variants using RV parameters from the left apical four-chamber view and perpendicular diameter from the right parasternal short-axis view (AEM_A4C-RPS and LEM_A4C-RPS, respectively) were the only methods to achieve moderate agreement with RT3D (r_c > 0.90). The AEM_A4C-RPS showed no significant systematic bias for iEDV (median of the differences [95% confidence interval]: 0.09 [0.00–0.13]), while LEM_A4C-RPS exhibited no significant systematic bias for iEDV (0.03 [−0.02–0.08]) and iESV (0.04 [−0.01–0.12]), though biases increased at larger volumes. Both methods demonstrated good reproducibility (ICC > 0.75), with iESV reproducibility significantly greater than that of methods using RV parameters from the right parasternal long-axis four-chamber view.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

The AEM_A4C-RPS and LEM_A4C-RPS offer practical RV volume estimates.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

二维椭球模型在估计犬三维超声心动图右心室容积中的比较

由于右心室（RV）形状复杂，通常需要三维成像来确定其体积。椭球模型提供了一个二维替代方案，采用基于面积或线性的公式，根据用于测量的超声心动图视图进一步变化。假设/目的确定哪种椭球模型变体最符合实时三维超声心动图（RT3D）作为参考标准，并评估日内再现性。67只客户拥有的狗（23只正常，44只患有右侧心脏病）接受了超声心动图检查，20只正常狗接受了重复检查。方法前瞻性方法比较研究。体重指数舒张末期体积（iEDV）和收缩末期体积（iESV）在8个椭球模型变体中计算。使用一致性相关系数（rc）和Bland-Altman分析评估一致性，使用类内相关系数（ICC）和可重复性系数评估日内可重复性。结果使用左心尖四腔面和右胸骨旁短轴面垂直直径的RV参数（分别为AEMA4C-RPS和LEMA4C-RPS）的面积和线性变量是唯一与RT3D达到中等一致的方法（rc > 0.90）。AEMA4C-RPS对iEDV没有显著的系统偏倚（差异中位数[95%置信区间]:0.09[0.00-0.13]），而LEMA4C-RPS对iEDV（0.03[- 0.02-0.08]）和iESV（0.04[- 0.01-0.12]）没有显著的系统偏倚，尽管偏倚在更大的体积上增加。两种方法均表现出良好的再现性（ICC > 0.75）， iESV的再现性显著高于使用右胸骨旁长轴四腔视图的RV参数的方法。结论和临床意义AEMA4C-RPS和LEMA4C-RPS提供了实用的RV体积估计。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 农林科学-兽医学

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

11.50%

发文量

243

审稿时长

22 weeks

期刊介绍： The mission of the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine is to advance veterinary medical knowledge and improve the lives of animals by publication of authoritative scientific articles of animal diseases.