Impact of presence of abnormal wall motion on echocardiographic determination of left ventricular function with automated boundary detection technique: re-evaluation.

G C Zhang, K Nakamura, T Tsukada, S Nakatani, M Uematsu, N Tanaka, Y Masuda, Y Yasumura, K Miyatake, M Yamagishi
{"title":"Impact of presence of abnormal wall motion on echocardiographic determination of left ventricular function with automated boundary detection technique: re-evaluation.","authors":"G C Zhang,&nbsp;K Nakamura,&nbsp;T Tsukada,&nbsp;S Nakatani,&nbsp;M Uematsu,&nbsp;N Tanaka,&nbsp;Y Masuda,&nbsp;Y Yasumura,&nbsp;K Miyatake,&nbsp;M Yamagishi","doi":"10.1023/a:1006060105703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is still unclear whether echocardiography with an automated boundary detection technique (ABD) can accurately determine the left ventricular (LV) volume and function particularly in the presence of LV wall asynergy. We intended to re-evaluate the reliability and application of the ABD, which was based on the acoustic quantification technique (Sonos 2500, Hewlett Packard) for the LV volume measurement in patients without or with LV wall asynergy. A total of 80 patients (mean age 56 years) who underwent left ventriculography (LVG) were divided into two groups. The group A consisted of 29 patients with normal LV wall motion and the group B consisted of 51 patients with generalized or regional LV wall motion abnormality. In group A patients, the LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) was 96 +/- 25 ml by ABD and 112 +/- 33 ml by LVG and those of LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) were 44 +/- 14 ml by ABD and 48 +/- 17 ml by LVG, thus resulting in the underestimation of LV volume by 12% in average. Under these conditions, the LV ejection fraction (LVEF) by ABD, 54 +/- 8%, correlated well with that by LVG, 58 +/- 7%. Although underestimation of LV volume by 17% in average also occurred in groups B (N.S.), LVEF was found to correlate well with that by LVG; 27 +/- 8% vs 30 +/- 11% (r = 0.87, SEE = 3.1%) for 21 patients with the generalized LV asynergy; 39 +/- 10% vs 39 +/- 12% (r = 0.86. SEE = 3.3%) for 30 patients with the regional LV asynergy. These results demonstrate the feasibility of the ABD in determining the LVEF, although underestimation can occur in measuring the absolute LV volume in patients with or without LV asynergy.</p>","PeriodicalId":77179,"journal":{"name":"International journal of cardiac imaging","volume":"14 4","pages":"253-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/a:1006060105703","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of cardiac imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006060105703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

It is still unclear whether echocardiography with an automated boundary detection technique (ABD) can accurately determine the left ventricular (LV) volume and function particularly in the presence of LV wall asynergy. We intended to re-evaluate the reliability and application of the ABD, which was based on the acoustic quantification technique (Sonos 2500, Hewlett Packard) for the LV volume measurement in patients without or with LV wall asynergy. A total of 80 patients (mean age 56 years) who underwent left ventriculography (LVG) were divided into two groups. The group A consisted of 29 patients with normal LV wall motion and the group B consisted of 51 patients with generalized or regional LV wall motion abnormality. In group A patients, the LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) was 96 +/- 25 ml by ABD and 112 +/- 33 ml by LVG and those of LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) were 44 +/- 14 ml by ABD and 48 +/- 17 ml by LVG, thus resulting in the underestimation of LV volume by 12% in average. Under these conditions, the LV ejection fraction (LVEF) by ABD, 54 +/- 8%, correlated well with that by LVG, 58 +/- 7%. Although underestimation of LV volume by 17% in average also occurred in groups B (N.S.), LVEF was found to correlate well with that by LVG; 27 +/- 8% vs 30 +/- 11% (r = 0.87, SEE = 3.1%) for 21 patients with the generalized LV asynergy; 39 +/- 10% vs 39 +/- 12% (r = 0.86. SEE = 3.3%) for 30 patients with the regional LV asynergy. These results demonstrate the feasibility of the ABD in determining the LVEF, although underestimation can occur in measuring the absolute LV volume in patients with or without LV asynergy.

壁壁异常运动对超声心动图自动边界检测技术测定左心室功能的影响:重新评价。
超声心动图与自动边界检测技术(ABD)是否能够准确地确定左室(LV)的体积和功能,特别是在左室壁无功能的情况下,目前尚不清楚。我们打算重新评估ABD的可靠性和应用,ABD是基于声学量化技术(Sonos 2500, Hewlett Packard)用于无或有左室壁不对称的患者的左室体积测量。80例接受左心室造影(LVG)的患者(平均年龄56岁)分为两组。A组29例左室壁运动正常,B组51例左室壁运动全身性或局部性异常。A组患者左室舒张末期容积(LVEDV) ABD为96 +/- 25ml, LVG为112 +/- 33ml,左室收缩末期容积(LVESV) ABD为44 +/- 14ml, LVG为48 +/- 17ml,导致左室容积平均低估12%。在这些条件下,ABD的左室射血分数(LVEF)为54 +/- 8%,与LVG的LVEF(58 +/- 7%)相关性良好。虽然B组(N.S.)也平均低估了17%的左室容积,但LVEF与LVG的相关性很好;21例广泛性左室不完全性患者为27 +/- 8% vs 30 +/- 11% (r = 0.87, SEE = 3.1%);39 +/- 10% vs 39 +/- 12% (r = 0.86)局部左室不完全性患者30例,SEE = 3.3%)。这些结果证明了ABD在确定LVEF方面的可行性,尽管在测量有或没有左室不完全性的患者的左室绝对容积时可能会出现低估。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信