Frederique M. de Raat MSc, Peter Bingley MSc, Sjoerd Bouwmeester MD, PhD, Suzanne E. A. Felix MD, PhD, Leon J. Montenij MD, PhD, Arthur R. Bouwman MD, PhD
{"title":"基于平板电脑的单平面自动量化每搏容积和左心室射血分数:与基于计算机的双平面和单平面工具的比较评估。","authors":"Frederique M. de Raat MSc, Peter Bingley MSc, Sjoerd Bouwmeester MD, PhD, Suzanne E. A. Felix MD, PhD, Leon J. Montenij MD, PhD, Arthur R. Bouwman MD, PhD","doi":"10.1111/echo.15904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Point-of-care cardiovascular left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) quantification is established, but automatic tablet-based stroke volume (SV) quantification with handheld ultrasound (HAND) devices is unexplored. We evaluated a tablet-based monoplane LVEF and LV volume quantification tool (AutoEF) against a computer-based tool (Tomtec) for LVEF and SV quantification.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Patients underwent HAND scans, and LVEF and SV were quantified using AutoEF and computer-based software that utilized either apical four-chamber views (Auto Strain-monoplane [AS-mono]) or both apical four-chamber and apical two-chamber views (Auto Strain-biplane [AS-bi]). Correlation and Bland–Altman analysis were used to compare AutoEF with AS-mono and AS-bi.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Out of 43 participants, eight were excluded. AutoEF showed a correlation of .83 [.69:.91] with AS-mono for LVEF and .68 [.44:.82] for SV. The correlation with AS-bi was .79 [.62:.89] for LVEF and .66 [.42:.81] for SV. The bias between AutoEF and AS-mono was 4.88% [3.15:6.61] for LVEF and 17.46 mL [12.99:21.92] for SV. The limits of agreement (LOA) were [−5.50:15.26]% for LVEF and [−8.02:42.94] mL for SV. The bias between AutoEF and AS-bi was 6.63% [5.31:7.94] for LVEF and 20.62 mL [16.18:25.05] for SV, with LOA of [−1.20:14.47]% for LVEF and [−4.71:45.94] mL for SV.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>LVEF quantification with AutoEF software was accurate and reliable, but SV quantification showed limitations, indicating non-interchangeability with neither AS-mono nor AS-bi. Further refinement of AutoEF is needed for reliable SV quantification at the point of care.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50558,"journal":{"name":"Echocardiography-A Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound and Allied Techniques","volume":"41 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/echo.15904","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Automatic tablet-based monoplane quantification of stroke volume and left ventricular ejection fraction: A comparative assessment against computer-based biplane and monoplane tools\",\"authors\":\"Frederique M. de Raat MSc, Peter Bingley MSc, Sjoerd Bouwmeester MD, PhD, Suzanne E. A. Felix MD, PhD, Leon J. Montenij MD, PhD, Arthur R. Bouwman MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/echo.15904\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Point-of-care cardiovascular left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) quantification is established, but automatic tablet-based stroke volume (SV) quantification with handheld ultrasound (HAND) devices is unexplored. We evaluated a tablet-based monoplane LVEF and LV volume quantification tool (AutoEF) against a computer-based tool (Tomtec) for LVEF and SV quantification.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patients underwent HAND scans, and LVEF and SV were quantified using AutoEF and computer-based software that utilized either apical four-chamber views (Auto Strain-monoplane [AS-mono]) or both apical four-chamber and apical two-chamber views (Auto Strain-biplane [AS-bi]). Correlation and Bland–Altman analysis were used to compare AutoEF with AS-mono and AS-bi.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Out of 43 participants, eight were excluded. AutoEF showed a correlation of .83 [.69:.91] with AS-mono for LVEF and .68 [.44:.82] for SV. The correlation with AS-bi was .79 [.62:.89] for LVEF and .66 [.42:.81] for SV. The bias between AutoEF and AS-mono was 4.88% [3.15:6.61] for LVEF and 17.46 mL [12.99:21.92] for SV. The limits of agreement (LOA) were [−5.50:15.26]% for LVEF and [−8.02:42.94] mL for SV. The bias between AutoEF and AS-bi was 6.63% [5.31:7.94] for LVEF and 20.62 mL [16.18:25.05] for SV, with LOA of [−1.20:14.47]% for LVEF and [−4.71:45.94] mL for SV.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>LVEF quantification with AutoEF software was accurate and reliable, but SV quantification showed limitations, indicating non-interchangeability with neither AS-mono nor AS-bi. Further refinement of AutoEF is needed for reliable SV quantification at the point of care.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Echocardiography-A Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound and Allied Techniques\",\"volume\":\"41 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/echo.15904\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Echocardiography-A Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound and Allied Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/echo.15904\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Echocardiography-A Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound and Allied Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/echo.15904","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Automatic tablet-based monoplane quantification of stroke volume and left ventricular ejection fraction: A comparative assessment against computer-based biplane and monoplane tools
Background
Point-of-care cardiovascular left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) quantification is established, but automatic tablet-based stroke volume (SV) quantification with handheld ultrasound (HAND) devices is unexplored. We evaluated a tablet-based monoplane LVEF and LV volume quantification tool (AutoEF) against a computer-based tool (Tomtec) for LVEF and SV quantification.
Methods
Patients underwent HAND scans, and LVEF and SV were quantified using AutoEF and computer-based software that utilized either apical four-chamber views (Auto Strain-monoplane [AS-mono]) or both apical four-chamber and apical two-chamber views (Auto Strain-biplane [AS-bi]). Correlation and Bland–Altman analysis were used to compare AutoEF with AS-mono and AS-bi.
Results
Out of 43 participants, eight were excluded. AutoEF showed a correlation of .83 [.69:.91] with AS-mono for LVEF and .68 [.44:.82] for SV. The correlation with AS-bi was .79 [.62:.89] for LVEF and .66 [.42:.81] for SV. The bias between AutoEF and AS-mono was 4.88% [3.15:6.61] for LVEF and 17.46 mL [12.99:21.92] for SV. The limits of agreement (LOA) were [−5.50:15.26]% for LVEF and [−8.02:42.94] mL for SV. The bias between AutoEF and AS-bi was 6.63% [5.31:7.94] for LVEF and 20.62 mL [16.18:25.05] for SV, with LOA of [−1.20:14.47]% for LVEF and [−4.71:45.94] mL for SV.
Conclusion
LVEF quantification with AutoEF software was accurate and reliable, but SV quantification showed limitations, indicating non-interchangeability with neither AS-mono nor AS-bi. Further refinement of AutoEF is needed for reliable SV quantification at the point of care.
期刊介绍:
Echocardiography: A Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound and Allied Techniques is the official publication of the International Society of Cardiovascular Ultrasound. Widely recognized for its comprehensive peer-reviewed articles, case studies, original research, and reviews by international authors. Echocardiography keeps its readership of echocardiographers, ultrasound specialists, and cardiologists well informed of the latest developments in the field.