"3D fusion" echocardiography improves 3D left ventricular assessment: comparison with 2D contrast echocardiography.
"3D fusion" echocardiography improves 3D left ventricular assessment: comparison with 2D contrast echocardiography.
复制标题
“3D 融合”超声心动图改善了 3D 左心室评估：与 2D 对比超声心动图的比较。
DOI：
10.1111/echo.12655
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Augustine D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Augustine D
三维融合超声心动图（3DFE）是一种新的后处理方法，它利用了从多个3D采集获得的成像数据。我们评估了图像质量，内膜边界的定义，和心脏壁运动的患者使用3DFE相比，标准的3D图像（3D）和对比超声心动图（2DC）获得的结果methods 24例患者（平均年龄66.9 ± 13岁，17名男性，7名女性）进行2DC有三个，非对比，3D心尖体积在休息时收购。使用自动图像融合方法融合图像。基于对比噪声比（CNR）和内镜边界定义，将3DFE的质量与3D和2DC进行了比较。然后，我们将3DFE和3D计算的临床室壁运动评分指数（WMSI）与2DC图像获得的结果进行比较。（8.92 ± 1.35 vs. 6.59 ± 1.19，P < 0.0005）和节段图像质量（2.42 ± 0.99 vs. 1.93 ± 1.18，P < 0.005）。达到的水平更接近2D对比图像的评分（CNR：9.04 ± 2.21，P = 0.6;节段图像质量：2.91 ± 0.37，P < 0.005）。从融合的3D容积计算的WMSI与从2D造影超声心动图获得的WMSI无显著差异（1.06 ± 0.09 vs. 1.07 ± 0.15，P = 0.69），而未融合图像产生的结果变量显著更多（1.19 ± 0.30）。这一点得到了更好的组内相关系数的证实（ICC 0.72; 95% CI 0.32-0.88）与未融合图像相比（ICC 0.56; 95%CI 0.02-0.81）结论与未融合的3D相比，3DFE显著改善了患者群体的左心室图像质量，并允许接近2D的室壁运动的非造影评估。超声造影
BackgroundThree‐dimensional fusion echocardiography (3DFE) is a novel postprocessing approach that utilizes imaging data acquired from multiple 3D acquisitions. We assessed image quality, endocardial border definition, and cardiac wall motion in patients using 3DFE compared to standard 3D images (3D) and results obtained with contrast echocardiography (2DC).MethodsTwenty‐four patients (mean age 66.9 ± 13 years, 17 males, 7 females) undergoing 2DC had three, noncontrast, 3D apical volumes acquired at rest. Images were fused using an automated image fusion approach. Quality of the 3DFE was compared to both 3D and 2DC based on contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) and endocardial border definition. We then compared clinical wall‐motion score index (WMSI) calculated from 3DFE and 3D to those obtained from 2DC images.ResultsFused 3D volumes had significantly improved CNR (8.92 ± 1.35 vs. 6.59 ± 1.19, P < 0.0005) and segmental image quality (2.42 ± 0.99 vs. 1.93 ± 1.18, P < 0.005) compared to unfused 3D acquisitions. Levels achieved were closer to scores for 2D contrast images (CNR: 9.04 ± 2.21, P = 0.6; segmental image quality: 2.91 ± 0.37, P < 0.005). WMSI calculated from fused 3D volumes did not differ significantly from those obtained from 2D contrast echocardiography (1.06 ± 0.09 vs. 1.07 ± 0.15, P = 0.69), whereas unfused images produced significantly more variable results (1.19 ± 0.30). This was confirmed by a better intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 0.72; 95% CI 0.32–0.88) relative to comparisons with unfused images (ICC 0.56; 95% CI 0.02–0.81).Conclusion3DFE significantly improves left ventricular image quality compared to unfused 3D in a patient population and allows noncontrast assessment of wall motion that approaches that achieved with 2D contrast echocardiography.