Log on / register
BioMed Central home | Journals A-Z | Feedback | Support | My details
Open AccessResearch

Assessment of left ventricular volumes using simplified 3-D echocardiography and computed tomography – a phantom and clinical study

Mattias Mårtensson1 email, Reidar Winter2 email, Kerstin Cederlund3 email, Jonaz Ripsweden3 email, Habib Mir-Akbari4 email, Jacek Nowak2 email and Lars-Åke Brodin1 email

School for Technology and Health, Royal Institute of Technology, Flemingsberg, Stockholm, Sweden

Department of Clinical Physiology, Karolinska University Hospital in Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden

Department of Radiology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Department of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital in Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden

author email corresponding author email

Cardiovascular Ultrasound 2008, 6:26doi:10.1186/1476-7120-6-26

Published: 4 June 2008

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the accuracy of simplified 3-dimensional (3-D) echocardiography vs. multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) software for the quantification of left ventricular (LV) volumes.

Design

Three-D echocardiography (3-planes approach) and MSCT-CardIQ software were calibrated by measuring known volumes of 10 phantoms designed to closely mimic blood-endocardium interface. Subsequently, LV volumes were measured with both the methods in 9 patients referred routinely for coronary angiography and the agreement between the measurements was evaluated.

Results

Simplified 3D-echocardiography provided higher degree of agreement between the measured and true phantom volumes (mean difference 0 ± 1 ml, variation range +4 to -4 ml) than MSCT software (mean difference 6 ± 5 ml; variation range +22 to -10 ml). The agreement between LV measurements in the patients was considerably poorer, with significantly larger volumes produced by MSCT (mean difference -23 ± 40 ml, variation between +93 and -138 ml).

Conclusion

Simplified 3-D echocardiography provides more accurate assessment of phantom volumes than MSCT-CardIQ software. The discrepancy between the results of LV measurements with the two methods is even greater and does not warrant their interchangeable diagnostic use.


© 1999-2010 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Part of Springer Science+Business Media.