Comparison of Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Echocardiography in Determination of Left Ventricle Volumes and Ejection Fraction in Adult Population

Bushljetikj, Oliver; Georgievska-Ismail, Ljubica

doi:10.2478/prilozi-2018-0011

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bushljetikj et al reported their study of 52 patients over age 65, comparing 2D standard biplane volume calculation with multibeat 3D (analyzed off line post echocardiography). Volumetric measurements indexed to the body surface area were underestimated by the 2D standard biplane method (indexed EDV by 12% and indexed ESV by 17%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two‐dimensional strain echocardiography‐derived left ventricular ejection fraction, volumes, and global systolic dyssynchrony index: Comparison with three‐dimensional echocardiography

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Three‐dimensional (3D) echocardiography is the most accurate echocardiographic method for ventricular chamber quantification. It is unclear how two‐dimensional (2D) techniques perform against 3D technology and whether 2D methods can be extrapolated to obtain 3D data. Methods Retrospective review of transthoracic echocardiography was performed, with comparison of ejection fraction (EF), end‐diastolic volume (EDV), end‐systolic volume (ESV), and 2D strain‐derived global longitudinal strain (GLS) and synchrony index. Results One‐hundred patients were identified. Using 3D echocardiography as reference standard, good correlation was noted with 2D strain‐derived EF (r = 0.89, P < 0.01) and with 2D standard biplane EF (r = 0.90, P < 0.01) and similarly for EDV (r = 0.84 and r = 0.81, respectively, both P < 0.01). Two‐dimensional strain‐derived EDV by 8% and 2D biplane‐derived EDV underestimated by 8% (P < 0.01). In relation to 3D EF, 2D strain underestimated by 2% and 2D standard biplane overestimated by 2% (P < 0.01). There was a negative correlation between GLS and 3D EF (r = 0.84, P = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, 3D EF could be derived from 2D strain [3D EF = 34.345 + (0.125 * EDV) + (−0.289 * ESV) + (−1.141 * GLS)]. Three‐dimensional echocardiography‐derived synchrony parameter (ie, standard deviation from mean time to minimum systolic volume from 16 subvolumes) did not correlate with 2D strain‐derived synchrony index (r = 0.171). Conclusions Two‐dimensional standard biplane and 2D strain EF and EDV strongly correlate with 3D EF and EDV. Although 2D methods are predictive of 3D findings, over‐ and underestimations may occur. Three‐dimensional echocardiography should be used when available.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%