4.3 Article

Multi-parametric on board evaluation of right ventricular function using three-dimensional echocardiography: feasibility and comparison to traditional two-and three dimensional echocardiographic measurements

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10554-018-1496-9

关键词

Three-dimensional echocardiography; Right ventricle; Right ventricular ejection fraction; Right ventricular strain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three-dimensional echocardiographic (3DE) of right ventricle (RV) has been validated in many clinical settings. However, the necessity of complicated and off-line dedicated software has reduced its diffusion. A new simplified on board 3DE software (OB) has been developed to obtain RV volumes and ejection fraction (EF) together with several conventional parameters automatically derived from 3DE: tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), fractional area change (FAC), longitudinal strain (LS). Aims of this study were to evaluate feasibility and accuracy of OB RV analysis. A complete 2DE and 3DE with OB 3DRV evaluation was obtained in 35 normal subjects and 105 patients with different pathologies. Results were compared with the conventional off-line software (OFL) and with the 2D-derived corresponding values. A subgroup of 22 patients underwent also cardiac CMR. OB 3DRV was feasible in 133/140 cases (95%) in a mean time of 97.5 +/- 33s lower than OFL analysis (129 +/- 52s plus dataset loading 80 +/- 24s). Imaging quality was good in 84%. OB and OFL 3DE RV volumes and EF were similar. 3DE derived FSA and LS (but not TAPSE) were similar to 2DE values and correlated with tissue Doppler systolic peak velocity, dP/dt, systolic pulmonary pressure and myocardial performance index. OB RV volumes and EF well correlated with CMR. (bias+SD: -21.5 +/- 20mL for EDV; -8.2 +/- 12.4mL for ESV; -1 +/- 5.9% for EF). OB 3DE method is feasible, simple, time saving. It easily provides 3DE RV volumes and multiple functional parameters. Off-line operator border adjustment may improve accuracy of 3DE TAPSE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据