Premium
“3D Fusion” Echocardiography Improves 3D Left Ventricular Assessment: Comparison with 2D Contrast Echocardiography
Author(s) -
Augustine Daniel,
Yaqub Mohammad,
Szmigielski Cezary,
Lima Eduardo,
Petersen Steffen E.,
Becher Harald,
Noble J. Alison,
Leeson Paul
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
echocardiography
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.404
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1540-8175
pISSN - 0742-2822
DOI - 10.1111/echo.12655
Subject(s) - intraclass correlation , medicine , contrast (vision) , nuclear medicine , image quality , contrast to noise ratio , cardiology , radiology , artificial intelligence , image (mathematics) , computer science , clinical psychology , psychometrics
Background Three‐dimensional fusion echocardiography (3 DFE ) 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 3 DFE compared to standard 3D images (3D) and results obtained with contrast echocardiography (2 DC ). Methods Twenty‐four patients (mean age 66.9 ± 13 years, 17 males, 7 females) undergoing 2 DC had three, noncontrast, 3D apical volumes acquired at rest. Images were fused using an automated image fusion approach. Quality of the 3 DFE was compared to both 3D and 2 DC based on contrast‐to‐noise ratio ( CNR ) and endocardial border definition. We then compared clinical wall‐motion score index ( WMSI ) calculated from 3 DFE and 3D to those obtained from 2 DC images. Results Fused 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). Conclusion 3 DFE 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.