跨平台变化对经胸超声心动图测量和临床诊断的影响

European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice Pub Date : 2024-09-23 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1093/ehjimp/qyae097
Mohammad Saber Hashemi, Yasaman Farsiani, Gregg S Pressman, M Reza Amini, Arash Kheradvar
{"title":"跨平台变化对经胸超声心动图测量和临床诊断的影响","authors":"Mohammad Saber Hashemi, Yasaman Farsiani, Gregg S Pressman, M Reza Amini, Arash Kheradvar","doi":"10.1093/ehjimp/qyae097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Accurate cardiac chamber quantification is essential for clinical decisions and ideally should be consistent across different echocardiography systems. This study evaluates variations between the Philips EPIQ CVx (version 9.0.3) and Canon Aplio i900 (version 7.0) in measuring cardiac volumes, ventricular function, and valve structures.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>In this gender-balanced, single-centre study, 40 healthy volunteers (20 females and 20 males) aged 40 years and older (mean age 56.75 ± 11.57 years) were scanned alternately with both systems by the same sonographer using identical settings for both 2D and 4D acquisitions. We compared left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volumes using paired <i>t</i>-tests, with significance set at <i>P</i> < 0.05. Correlation and Bland-Altman plots were used for quantities showing significant differences. Two board-certified cardiologists evaluated valve anatomy for each platform. The results showed no significant differences in LV end-systolic volume and LV ejection fraction between platforms. However, LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) differed significantly (biplane: <i>P</i> = 0.018; 4D: <i>P</i> = 0.028). Right ventricular (RV) measurements in 4D showed no significant differences, but there were notable disparities in 2D and 4D volumes within each platform (<i>P</i> < 0.01). Significant differences were also found in the LV systolic dyssynchrony index (<i>P</i> = 0.03), LV longitudinal strain (<i>P</i> = 0.04), LV twist (<i>P</i> = 0.004), and LV torsion (<i>P</i> = 0.005). Valve structure assessments varied, with more abnormalities noted on the Philips platform.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although LV and RV volumetric measurements are generally comparable, significant differences in LVEDV, LV strain metrics, and 2D vs. 4D measurements exist. These variations should be considered when using different platforms for patient follow-ups.</p>","PeriodicalId":94317,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11465166/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of cross-platform variations on transthoracic echocardiography measurements and clinical diagnosis.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Saber Hashemi, Yasaman Farsiani, Gregg S Pressman, M Reza Amini, Arash Kheradvar\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ehjimp/qyae097\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Accurate cardiac chamber quantification is essential for clinical decisions and ideally should be consistent across different echocardiography systems. This study evaluates variations between the Philips EPIQ CVx (version 9.0.3) and Canon Aplio i900 (version 7.0) in measuring cardiac volumes, ventricular function, and valve structures.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>In this gender-balanced, single-centre study, 40 healthy volunteers (20 females and 20 males) aged 40 years and older (mean age 56.75 ± 11.57 years) were scanned alternately with both systems by the same sonographer using identical settings for both 2D and 4D acquisitions. We compared left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volumes using paired <i>t</i>-tests, with significance set at <i>P</i> < 0.05. Correlation and Bland-Altman plots were used for quantities showing significant differences. Two board-certified cardiologists evaluated valve anatomy for each platform. The results showed no significant differences in LV end-systolic volume and LV ejection fraction between platforms. However, LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) differed significantly (biplane: <i>P</i> = 0.018; 4D: <i>P</i> = 0.028). Right ventricular (RV) measurements in 4D showed no significant differences, but there were notable disparities in 2D and 4D volumes within each platform (<i>P</i> < 0.01). Significant differences were also found in the LV systolic dyssynchrony index (<i>P</i> = 0.03), LV longitudinal strain (<i>P</i> = 0.04), LV twist (<i>P</i> = 0.004), and LV torsion (<i>P</i> = 0.005). Valve structure assessments varied, with more abnormalities noted on the Philips platform.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although LV and RV volumetric measurements are generally comparable, significant differences in LVEDV, LV strain metrics, and 2D vs. 4D measurements exist. These variations should be considered when using different platforms for patient follow-ups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11465166/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjimp/qyae097\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjimp/qyae097","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:精确的心腔量化对临床决策至关重要,不同的超声心动图系统最好能保持一致。本研究评估了飞利浦 EPIQ CVx(9.0.3 版)和佳能 Aplio i900(7.0 版)在测量心脏容积、心室功能和瓣膜结构方面的差异:在这项性别均衡的单中心研究中,40 名 40 岁及以上的健康志愿者(20 名女性和 20 名男性)(平均年龄 56.75 ± 11.57 岁)由同一超声技师使用两种系统交替扫描,二维和四维采集设置完全相同。我们使用配对 t 检验比较了左心室 (LV) 和右心室 (RV) 容量,显著性以 P < 0.05 为标准。相关性和布兰-阿尔特曼图用于显示显著差异的数量。两名获得认证的心脏病专家对每个平台的瓣膜解剖进行了评估。结果显示,不同平台的左心室收缩末期容积和左心室射血分数无明显差异。但是,左心室舒张末期容积(LVEDV)有显著差异(双平面:P = 0.018;4D:P = 0.028)。4D 的右心室(RV)测量结果无显著差异,但每个平台的 2D 和 4D 容量存在明显差异(P < 0.01)。左心室收缩不同步指数(P = 0.03)、左心室纵向应变(P = 0.04)、左心室扭转(P = 0.004)和左心室扭转(P = 0.005)也存在显著差异。瓣膜结构评估结果各不相同,飞利浦平台上的异常更多:结论:虽然左心室和左心室容积测量结果总体上具有可比性,但左心室左室容积、左心室应变指标以及二维与四维测量结果存在显著差异。在使用不同平台对患者进行随访时,应考虑到这些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of cross-platform variations on transthoracic echocardiography measurements and clinical diagnosis.

Aims: Accurate cardiac chamber quantification is essential for clinical decisions and ideally should be consistent across different echocardiography systems. This study evaluates variations between the Philips EPIQ CVx (version 9.0.3) and Canon Aplio i900 (version 7.0) in measuring cardiac volumes, ventricular function, and valve structures.

Methods and results: In this gender-balanced, single-centre study, 40 healthy volunteers (20 females and 20 males) aged 40 years and older (mean age 56.75 ± 11.57 years) were scanned alternately with both systems by the same sonographer using identical settings for both 2D and 4D acquisitions. We compared left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volumes using paired t-tests, with significance set at P < 0.05. Correlation and Bland-Altman plots were used for quantities showing significant differences. Two board-certified cardiologists evaluated valve anatomy for each platform. The results showed no significant differences in LV end-systolic volume and LV ejection fraction between platforms. However, LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) differed significantly (biplane: P = 0.018; 4D: P = 0.028). Right ventricular (RV) measurements in 4D showed no significant differences, but there were notable disparities in 2D and 4D volumes within each platform (P < 0.01). Significant differences were also found in the LV systolic dyssynchrony index (P = 0.03), LV longitudinal strain (P = 0.04), LV twist (P = 0.004), and LV torsion (P = 0.005). Valve structure assessments varied, with more abnormalities noted on the Philips platform.

Conclusion: Although LV and RV volumetric measurements are generally comparable, significant differences in LVEDV, LV strain metrics, and 2D vs. 4D measurements exist. These variations should be considered when using different platforms for patient follow-ups.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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