Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography
Volume 21, Issue 9 , Pages 990-997, September 2008

Relative Importance of Errors in Left Ventricular Quantitation by Two-Dimensional Echocardiography: Insights From Three-Dimensional Echocardiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging

St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, NY; and Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY

Background

The accuracy of left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (EF) on two-dimensional echocardiography (2DE) is limited by image position (IP), geometric assumption (GA), and boundary tracing (BT) errors.

Methods

Real-time three-dimensional echocardiography (RT3DE) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) were used to determine the relative contribution of each error source in normal controls (n = 35) and patients with myocardial infarctions (MIs) (n = 34). LV volumes and EFs were calculated using (1) apical biplane disk summation on 2DE (IP + GA + BT errors), (2) biplane disk summation on RT3DE (GA + BT errors), (3) 4-multiplane to 8-multiplane surface approximation on RT3DE (GA + BT errors), (4) voxel-based surface approximation on RT3DE (BT error alone) and (5) CMR. By comparing each method with CMR, the absolute and relative contributions of each error source were determined.

Results

IP error predominated in LV volume quantification on 2DE in normal controls, whereas GA error predominated in patients with MIs. Underestimation of volumes on 2DE was overcome by increasing the number of imaging planes on RT3DE. Although 4 equidistant image planes were acceptable, the best results were achieved with voxel-based RT3DE. For EF estimation, IP error predominated in normal controls, whereas BT error predominated in patients with MIs. Nevertheless, one third of the EF estimation error in patients with MIs was due to a combination of IP and GA errors, both of which may be addressed using RT3DE.

Conclusions

The relative contribution of each source of LV quantitation error on 2DE was defined and quantified. Each source of error differed depending on patient characteristics and LV geometry.

Keywords: Echocardiography, Magnetic resonance imaging, Myocardial infarction

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0894-7317(08)00409-4

doi:10.1016/j.echo.2008.07.009

Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography
Volume 21, Issue 9 , Pages 990-997, September 2008