Left atrial volumes assessed by three- and two-dimensional echocardiography compared to MRI estimates.

O Rodevan, R Bjornerheim, M Ljosland, J Maehle, H J Smith, H Ihlen
{"title":"Left atrial volumes assessed by three- and two-dimensional echocardiography compared to MRI estimates.","authors":"O Rodevan,&nbsp;R Bjornerheim,&nbsp;M Ljosland,&nbsp;J Maehle,&nbsp;H J Smith,&nbsp;H Ihlen","doi":"10.1023/a:1006276513186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of the present study was to establish the accuracy and reproducibility of left atrial volume measurements by three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography compared to 2D biplane and monoplane measurements.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>No echocardiographic technique is generally accepted as optimal for estimation of left atrial size.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Left atrial volumes of 18 unselected cardiac patients were obtained with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (volumes 145 +/- 58 ml). These volumes were compared with those obtained with different echocardiographic methods: a multiplane 3D method based on 90 images acquired by apical probe rotation, a simplified 3D method using only the three standard apical views, and 2D biplane and monoplane methods based on area-length, disc summation and spherical formulas.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The echocardiographic methods significantly underestimated maximum left atrial volumes as obtained by MRI by 14-37% (p < 0.001). Accuracy, expressed as 1 SD of individual estimates around this systematic underestimation, was 25 to 27% for all methods, except for the 2D 2-chamber monoplane method (37%). Interobserver coefficient of variation was between 14 and 20% for all methods (n.s.).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All echocardiographic methods significantly underestimated left atrial volumes as obtained by MRI. A minor non-significant improvement in individual echocardiographic estimates by the 3D methods was obtained at the cost of more time consumption. In unselected patients ultrasound image quality precludes significant improvement of left atrial volume measurements by the applied 3D methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":77179,"journal":{"name":"International journal of cardiac imaging","volume":"15 5","pages":"397-410"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/a:1006276513186","citationCount":"253","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of cardiac imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006276513186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 253

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to establish the accuracy and reproducibility of left atrial volume measurements by three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography compared to 2D biplane and monoplane measurements.

Background: No echocardiographic technique is generally accepted as optimal for estimation of left atrial size.

Methods: Left atrial volumes of 18 unselected cardiac patients were obtained with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (volumes 145 +/- 58 ml). These volumes were compared with those obtained with different echocardiographic methods: a multiplane 3D method based on 90 images acquired by apical probe rotation, a simplified 3D method using only the three standard apical views, and 2D biplane and monoplane methods based on area-length, disc summation and spherical formulas.

Results: The echocardiographic methods significantly underestimated maximum left atrial volumes as obtained by MRI by 14-37% (p < 0.001). Accuracy, expressed as 1 SD of individual estimates around this systematic underestimation, was 25 to 27% for all methods, except for the 2D 2-chamber monoplane method (37%). Interobserver coefficient of variation was between 14 and 20% for all methods (n.s.).

Conclusion: All echocardiographic methods significantly underestimated left atrial volumes as obtained by MRI. A minor non-significant improvement in individual echocardiographic estimates by the 3D methods was obtained at the cost of more time consumption. In unselected patients ultrasound image quality precludes significant improvement of left atrial volume measurements by the applied 3D methods.

通过三维和二维超声心动图评估左心房容积与MRI估计的比较。
目的:本研究的目的是建立三维(3D)超声心动图左心房容积测量的准确性和可重复性,并与二维双平面和单平面测量相比较。背景:没有超声心动图技术被普遍认为是评估左心房大小的最佳方法。方法:对18例未选择的心脏患者进行磁共振成像(MRI),获得左心房容积(容积145 +/- 58 ml)。这些体积比较了不同超声心动图方法所获得的体积:基于根尖探针旋转获得的90幅图像的多平面三维方法,仅使用三个标准根尖视图的简化三维方法,以及基于面积长度,圆盘求和和球面公式的二维双平面和单平面方法。结果:超声心动图方法显著低估了MRI获得的最大左心房容积14-37% (p < 0.001)。除2D双腔单面法(37%)外,所有方法的准确度均为25 - 27%,以单个估计在该系统低估周围的1 SD表示。所有方法的观察者间变异系数在14%到20%之间(n.s.s)。结论:所有超声心动图方法均明显低估了MRI左心房容积。通过3D方法获得的个人超声心动图估计的次要非显著改善是以更多的时间消耗为代价的。在未选择的患者超声图像质量排除显著改善左房容积测量应用三维方法。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信