Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy and reproducibility of a novel, fully automated 3D echocardiography (3DE) right ventricular (RV) quantification software compared with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and semi-automated 3DE RV quantification software.
Methods And Results: RV volumes and the RV ejection fraction (RVEF) were measured using a fully automated software (Philips), a semi-automated software (TomTec), and CMR in 100 patients who had undergone both CMR and 3DE examinations on the same day. The feasibility of the fully automated software was 91%. Although the fully automated software, without any manual editing, significantly underestimated RV end-diastolic volume (bias: -12.6 mL, P < 0.001) and stroke volume (-5.1 mL, P < 0.001) compared with CMR, there were good correlations between the two modalities (r = 0.82 and 0.78). No significant differences in RVEF between the fully automated software and CMR were observed, and there was a fair correlation (r = 0.72). The RVEF determined by the semi-automated software was significantly larger than that by CMR or the fully automated software (P < 0.001). The fully automated software had a shorter analysis time compared with the semi-automated software (15 s vs. 120 s, P < 0.001) and had a good reproducibility.
Conclusion: A novel, fully automated 3DE RV quantification software underestimated RV volumes but successfully approximated RVEF when compared with CMR. No inferiority of this software was observed when compared with the semi-automated software. Rapid analysis and higher reproducibility also support the routine adoption of this method in the daily clinical workflow.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jez236 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!