Comparison between three-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for quantification of left ventricular volumes and function
Comparison between three-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for quantification of left ventricular volumes and function
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ehjci/jes030
复制
发表时间：
2012-10-01
影响因子：
6.2
通讯作者：
Kamp, Otto
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kleijn, Sebastiaan A.;Brouwer, Wessel P.;Kamp, Otto
我们评估了三维斑点追踪超声心动图(3DSTE)与心脏磁共振成像(MRI)在健康人群中评估左心室(LV)容量、射血分数(EF)和整体周向应变(CS)的准确性。在50名连续的健康受试者中，共有45名(38名男性，年龄45-15岁)在同一天成功地接受了3DSTE和MRI检查。使用斑点追踪技术对三维超声心动图数据集进行分析，以测量左室舒张末期和收缩末期容量、EF和整体CS。对于MRI，采用圆盘近似的方法获得体积和EF，而CS通过心肌组织标记法获得。技术间比较包括回归分析和BlandAltman分析。对于左心室容积的定量，3DSTE与MRI有很好的相关性(r：0.750.81)，但容积被严重低估，相对较大的偏差(1334毫升)和较宽的一致范围(SD：1125毫升)。然而，与MRI相比，3DSTE测量EF具有良好的准确性(r：0.91)、最小的偏差和较窄的一致性范围(0.6~1.7)。对于CS的测量，不同技术之间存在较大的平均偏差(10.0)，尽管一致性范围很窄(SD：1.7)，并且不同技术之间有很好的相关性(r：0.80)。尽管大多数患者与MRI相比低估了3DSTE得出的LV体积，但LVEF的测量显示出极高的准确性。与MRI相比，3DSTE对CS的测量系统性更大(即更负)，这可能反映了各种技术间的差异，排除了它们测量的直接可比性。
We evaluated the accuracy of three-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography (3DSTE) to evaluate left ventricular (LV) volumes, ejection fraction (EF), and global circumferential strain (CS) in comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a healthy population.A total of 45 out of 50 consecutive healthy subjects (38 males, age 45 15 years) successfully underwent both 3DSTE and MRI on the same day. Three-dimensional echocardiography data sets were analysed using speckle tracking to measure LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, EF, and global CS. With MRI, the method of discs approximation was used to obtain volumes and the EF, whereas CS was acquired using myocardial tissue tagging. Inter-technique comparisons included regression and the BlandAltman analysis. For quantification of LV volumes, 3DSTE correlated well with MRI (r: 0.750.81), but volumes were significantly underestimated with relatively large biases (1334 mL) and wide limits of agreement (SD: 1125 mL). However, excellent accuracy was revealed for measurement of EF by 3DSTE with a good correlation (r: 0.91), minimal bias, and narrow limits of agreement (0.6 1.7) compared with MRI. For measurement of CS, a large mean bias was found between techniques (10.0), despite narrow limits of agreement (SD: 1.7) and a good correlation between techniques (r: 0.80).Although 3DSTE-derived LV volumes are underestimated in most patients compared with MRI, measurement of the LVEF revealed excellent accuracy. Measurements of CS were systematically greater (i.e. more negative) with 3DSTE than MRI, which likely reflects various inter-technique differences that preclude direct comparability of their measurements.