Semi-automated estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction by two-dimensional and three-dimensional echocardiography is feasible, time-efficient, and reproducible

Katrine A. Myhr; Frederik H.G. Pedersen; Charlotte B. Kristensen; Lasse Visby; Christian Hassager; Rasmus Mogelvang

doi:10.1111/echo.14112

Semi-automated estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction by two-dimensional and three-dimensional echocardiography is feasible, time-efficient, and reproducible

Katrine A. Myhr^*, Frederik H.G. Pedersen, Charlotte B. Kristensen, Lasse Visby, Christian Hassager, Rasmus Mogelvang

^*Corresponding author for this work

Department of Clinical Medicine

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) methods to estimate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with respect to feasibility, time consumption, and retest reproducibility. Methods: A total of 100 patients planned to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting and/or aortic valve replacement were included consecutively. 2D and 3D echocardiography was performed on all patients. Acquisition and analysis time as well as intra- and inter-examiner variability were assessed in 50 consecutive patients with 3 repeated echocardiographic examinations and analyses. LVEF was estimated by five different methods: uniplane, biplane, and single-beat triplane (SB3P), as well as semi-automated biplane (AutoEF) and 3D volumetric tracings (4D Auto LVQ). All methods were compared to Simpson's biplane method and feasibility was determined. Results: Feasibility of Simpson's uniplane method, Simpson's biplane method, AutoEF, SB3P, and 4D Auto LVQ was 97%, 92%, 86%, 70%, and 89%, respectively. All methods evaluated were 18%–33% faster (P < 0.001) than Simpson's biplane method (115 seconds, standard deviation 15 seconds). Compared to Simpson's biplane method mean LVEF was slightly underestimated by 4D Auto LVQ (−2 ± 8%, P = 0.02), but not significantly different when assessed by the other methods. AutoEF and 4D Auto LVQ showed the lowest test variability (intra-examiner coefficient of variation (CV) 10%–11%; inter-examiner CV 10%–12% vs intra-examiner CV 12%–18%; inter-examiner CV 12%–20%). Conclusions: Estimation of LVEF by modern semi-automated 2D and 3D echocardiographic modalities is feasible, time-efficient, and reproducible.

Original language	English
Journal	Echocardiography
Volume	35
Issue number	11
Pages (from-to)	1795-1805
Number of pages	11
ISSN	0742-2822
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/echo.14112
Publication status	Published - 2018

Keywords

cardiac imaging
left ventricular ejection fraction
three-dimensional echocardiography

Access to Document

10.1111/echo.14112

Cite this

Semi-automated estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction by two-dimensional and three-dimensional echocardiography is feasible, time-efficient, and reproducible. / Myhr, Katrine A.; Pedersen, Frederik H.G.; Kristensen, Charlotte B. et al.

In: Echocardiography, Vol. 35, No. 11, 2018, p. 1795-1805.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

@article{2c069d6123aa43d1bd5a316314621fd5,

title = "Semi-automated estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction by two-dimensional and three-dimensional echocardiography is feasible, time-efficient, and reproducible",

abstract = "Purpose: To compare two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) methods to estimate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with respect to feasibility, time consumption, and retest reproducibility. Methods: A total of 100 patients planned to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting and/or aortic valve replacement were included consecutively. 2D and 3D echocardiography was performed on all patients. Acquisition and analysis time as well as intra- and inter-examiner variability were assessed in 50 consecutive patients with 3 repeated echocardiographic examinations and analyses. LVEF was estimated by five different methods: uniplane, biplane, and single-beat triplane (SB3P), as well as semi-automated biplane (AutoEF) and 3D volumetric tracings (4D Auto LVQ). All methods were compared to Simpson's biplane method and feasibility was determined. Results: Feasibility of Simpson's uniplane method, Simpson's biplane method, AutoEF, SB3P, and 4D Auto LVQ was 97%, 92%, 86%, 70%, and 89%, respectively. All methods evaluated were 18%–33% faster (P < 0.001) than Simpson's biplane method (115 seconds, standard deviation 15 seconds). Compared to Simpson's biplane method mean LVEF was slightly underestimated by 4D Auto LVQ (−2 ± 8%, P = 0.02), but not significantly different when assessed by the other methods. AutoEF and 4D Auto LVQ showed the lowest test variability (intra-examiner coefficient of variation (CV) 10%–11%; inter-examiner CV 10%–12% vs intra-examiner CV 12%–18%; inter-examiner CV 12%–20%). Conclusions: Estimation of LVEF by modern semi-automated 2D and 3D echocardiographic modalities is feasible, time-efficient, and reproducible.",

keywords = "cardiac imaging, left ventricular ejection fraction, three-dimensional echocardiography",

author = "Myhr, {Katrine A.} and Pedersen, {Frederik H.G.} and Kristensen, {Charlotte B.} and Lasse Visby and Christian Hassager and Rasmus Mogelvang",

year = "2018",

doi = "10.1111/echo.14112",

language = "English",

volume = "35",

pages = "1795--1805",

journal = "Echocardiography: A Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound and Allied Techniques",

issn = "0742-2822",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Semi-automated estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction by two-dimensional and three-dimensional echocardiography is feasible, time-efficient, and reproducible

AU - Myhr, Katrine A.

AU - Pedersen, Frederik H.G.

AU - Kristensen, Charlotte B.

AU - Visby, Lasse

AU - Hassager, Christian

AU - Mogelvang, Rasmus

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Purpose: To compare two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) methods to estimate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with respect to feasibility, time consumption, and retest reproducibility. Methods: A total of 100 patients planned to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting and/or aortic valve replacement were included consecutively. 2D and 3D echocardiography was performed on all patients. Acquisition and analysis time as well as intra- and inter-examiner variability were assessed in 50 consecutive patients with 3 repeated echocardiographic examinations and analyses. LVEF was estimated by five different methods: uniplane, biplane, and single-beat triplane (SB3P), as well as semi-automated biplane (AutoEF) and 3D volumetric tracings (4D Auto LVQ). All methods were compared to Simpson's biplane method and feasibility was determined. Results: Feasibility of Simpson's uniplane method, Simpson's biplane method, AutoEF, SB3P, and 4D Auto LVQ was 97%, 92%, 86%, 70%, and 89%, respectively. All methods evaluated were 18%–33% faster (P < 0.001) than Simpson's biplane method (115 seconds, standard deviation 15 seconds). Compared to Simpson's biplane method mean LVEF was slightly underestimated by 4D Auto LVQ (−2 ± 8%, P = 0.02), but not significantly different when assessed by the other methods. AutoEF and 4D Auto LVQ showed the lowest test variability (intra-examiner coefficient of variation (CV) 10%–11%; inter-examiner CV 10%–12% vs intra-examiner CV 12%–18%; inter-examiner CV 12%–20%). Conclusions: Estimation of LVEF by modern semi-automated 2D and 3D echocardiographic modalities is feasible, time-efficient, and reproducible.

AB - Purpose: To compare two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) methods to estimate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with respect to feasibility, time consumption, and retest reproducibility. Methods: A total of 100 patients planned to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting and/or aortic valve replacement were included consecutively. 2D and 3D echocardiography was performed on all patients. Acquisition and analysis time as well as intra- and inter-examiner variability were assessed in 50 consecutive patients with 3 repeated echocardiographic examinations and analyses. LVEF was estimated by five different methods: uniplane, biplane, and single-beat triplane (SB3P), as well as semi-automated biplane (AutoEF) and 3D volumetric tracings (4D Auto LVQ). All methods were compared to Simpson's biplane method and feasibility was determined. Results: Feasibility of Simpson's uniplane method, Simpson's biplane method, AutoEF, SB3P, and 4D Auto LVQ was 97%, 92%, 86%, 70%, and 89%, respectively. All methods evaluated were 18%–33% faster (P < 0.001) than Simpson's biplane method (115 seconds, standard deviation 15 seconds). Compared to Simpson's biplane method mean LVEF was slightly underestimated by 4D Auto LVQ (−2 ± 8%, P = 0.02), but not significantly different when assessed by the other methods. AutoEF and 4D Auto LVQ showed the lowest test variability (intra-examiner coefficient of variation (CV) 10%–11%; inter-examiner CV 10%–12% vs intra-examiner CV 12%–18%; inter-examiner CV 12%–20%). Conclusions: Estimation of LVEF by modern semi-automated 2D and 3D echocardiographic modalities is feasible, time-efficient, and reproducible.

KW - cardiac imaging

KW - left ventricular ejection fraction

KW - three-dimensional echocardiography

U2 - 10.1111/echo.14112

DO - 10.1111/echo.14112

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 30073701

AN - SCOPUS:85052406257

SN - 0742-2822

VL - 35

SP - 1795

EP - 1805

JO - Echocardiography: A Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound and Allied Techniques

JF - Echocardiography: A Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound and Allied Techniques

IS - 11

ER -

Semi-automated estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction by two-dimensional and three-dimensional echocardiography is feasible, time-efficient, and reproducible

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this