| Objective:Two-dimensional echocardiograph(2DE)and three-dimensional left heart volume quantitative technology(three-dimensional heart model,3DHM)were compared with cardiac magnetic resonance(CMR),and CMR was used as the gold standard To investigate the accuracy of 3DHM left ventricular volume quantification technique and left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with left ventricular remodeling and normal subjects,and the possibility of their clinical application.Methods:1.Objects: 35 patients in the Hospital from March 2019 to March 2020 were divided into the following 2 groups: Group A: 1(1)7 cases normal group,11 males,6 females,aged 23～70 years,average(49.23±16.39)years,all of which were asked for detailed medical history,family history,electrocardiogram examination and 2DE examination to rule out organic heart disease.(2)Group B: 18 patients with left ventricular remodeling group,14 males,4 females,aged 45~67 years,average(54.71±8.24)years,including 7 cases with ventricular aneurysms,7 cases with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy,and 3 cases with cardiomyopathy.2.Equipment: Philips EPIQ 7C color Doppler ultrasound diagnostic instrument,probe X5-1,frequency 1～5MHz,with HMACQ(3D Heart Model Acquisition Mode)three-dimensional image acquisition mode and QLab 10.5 software package,including 3DHM quantitative analysis software and 3DQ Advance plug-in analyze images and GE SIGNA pioneer 3.0T CMR.3.Methods: Transthoracic two-dimensional echocardiography(2D-TTE),three-dimensional fully automated echocardiography(3DHM)and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging techniques were used to measure left ventricular end-diastolic volume(LVEDV)and left ventricular end systole volume(LVESV)and left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF)were compared.SPSS 22.0 software and Med Calc 16.2 software were used for statistical analysis.All measurement data were expressed as SX ±.Comparison of parameters between groups was performed by single factor analysis of variance.Comparison of parameters between groups was performed by two independent sample t tests.A paired t test was used.Results:1.3DHM is better than 2DE in measuring LVEDV and LVEF.2.The 3DHM and CMR values of LVEDV,LVESV,and LVEF in group A were compared by group t test.The difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).The difference between the 3DHM and CMR measurements of LVEDV,LVESV,and LVEF in group B is statistically significant.The 3DHM measurements LVEDV and LVESV are greater than CMR,and the LVEF measurements are less than CMR.In pearson correlation analysis,the correlation between 3DHM of group A and LVEDV,LVESV and LVEF measured by CMR was very good(r= 0.97,0.97,0.89).The correlation between 3DHM measured in group B and LVEDV,LVESV and LVEF measured by CMR was poor correlation(P<0.05).3.According to Bland-Altman statistical analysis,3DHM and CMR imaging data have good consistency,and the consistency of 3DHM and CMR in group A is better than that in group B.4.The difference of LVEDV,LVESV and LVEF values measured by the same examiner at different times using the 3DHM method was not statistically significant(all P>0.05).Conclusions:1.3DHM measurements LVEDV,LVESV and LVEF Compared with 2DE are closer to CMR.2.Patients with left ventricular remodeling may cause the 3DHM model to not be completely matched,resulting in large measurement errors.3.Good image quality and proper manual editing can increase the accuracy of3 DHM measurement.4.The 3DHM has good repeatability,and there is no difference in the results of repeated measurements. |
PDF Full Text Request