Premium
Evaluation of Left Ventricular Volumes and Function by Real Time Three‐Dimensional Echocardiography in Children with Functional Single Left Ventricle: A Comparison between QLAB and TomTec
Author(s) -
Zhong ShuWen,
Zhang YuQi,
Chen LiJun,
Wang ShanShan,
Li WeiHua
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.12990
Subject(s) - ventricle , cardiology , medicine , ventricular function
Background Real time three‐dimensional echocardiography ( RT 3 DE ) provides a reliable analysis of left ventricular ( LV ) volume. Despite a wide spectrum of tracking algorithms presently available, which software is most suitable for evaluating functional single left ventricle ( FLSV ) is unknown. Herein, we compared two of the most commonly used 3 DE algorithms for quantification of LV volumes in the pediatric population with FLSV . Methods Thirty‐six children with FLSV were prospectively enrolled. The LV volume analysis was performed on QLAB 8.1 (semiautomated border tracking) and TomTec 4D LV 3.0 (manual dominant border tracking) and compared with MRI as the reference standard. Results 3 DE volume quantification was achieved for 32 children with QLAB and 34 children with TomTec. Analysis time was much shorter for QLAB than TomTec (4.8 ± 1.2 vs. 6.3 ± 1.8 minutes, P < 0.05). Ejection fraction ( EF ) by either 3 DE modality was significantly lower than the published normal values (P < 0.01 for each). End‐diastolic volume ( EDV ), end‐systolic volume ( ESV ), stroke volume, and EF calculated by both 3 DE modalities underestimated MRI values. Compared to QLAB , TomTec showed better correlation and smaller intertechnique differences with MRI (the 95% limits of agreement, EDV : −20.84 to 5.18 mL in QLAB , −10.66 to 1.84 mL in TomTec; ESV : −8.94 to 3.07 mL in QLAB , −2.45 to 0.98 mL in TomTec; SV : −13.31 to 3.45 mL in QLAB , −9.34 to 2.0 mL in TomTec; EF : −12.07 to 7.76% in QLAB , −9.64 to 1.52% in TomTec), TomTec was more reproducible with better intraclass correlation coefficients and variation coefficients. Conclusions Both 3 DE modalities tend to underestimate LV volumes, but the correlation of LV volumes and EF between 3 DE and MRI still holds well. Despite a longer operating time, TomTec analysis is more accurate and reproducible.