Robert Ciardullo, Brittany E. Tagg, Elisabeth Nesta, Shana B. Mintz, Romain Pariaut, Weihow Hsue
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Comparing Two-Dimensional Ellipsoid Model Variants in Estimating Three-Dimensional Echocardiographic Right Ventricular Volume in Dogs
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 (rc) 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 (AEMA4C-RPS and LEMA4C-RPS, respectively) were the only methods to achieve moderate agreement with RT3D (rc > 0.90). The AEMA4C-RPS showed no significant systematic bias for iEDV (median of the differences [95% confidence interval]: 0.09 [0.00–0.13]), while LEMA4C-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 AEMA4C-RPS and LEMA4C-RPS offer practical RV volume estimates.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
