AI Article Synopsis

  • The study compares cardiac chamber measurements between two echocardiography systems: Philips EPIQ CVx and Canon Aplio i900, focusing on healthy volunteers aged 40 and above.
  • It finds no significant differences in left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes between the systems, but significant variations in left ventricular end-diastolic volume and various strain metrics were observed.
  • The findings underscore the importance of considering these differences in cardiac assessments when switching between different echocardiography platforms for patient monitoring.

Article Abstract

Aims: Accurate cardiac chamber quantification is essential for clinical decisions and ideally should be consistent across different echocardiography systems. This study evaluates variations between the Philips EPIQ CVx (version 9.0.3) and Canon Aplio i900 (version 7.0) in measuring cardiac volumes, ventricular function, and valve structures.

Methods And Results: In this gender-balanced, single-centre study, 40 healthy volunteers (20 females and 20 males) aged 40 years and older (mean age 56.75 ± 11.57 years) were scanned alternately with both systems by the same sonographer using identical settings for both 2D and 4D acquisitions. We compared left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volumes using paired -tests, with significance set at < 0.05. Correlation and Bland-Altman plots were used for quantities showing significant differences. Two board-certified cardiologists evaluated valve anatomy for each platform. The results showed no significant differences in LV end-systolic volume and LV ejection fraction between platforms. However, LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) differed significantly (biplane: = 0.018; 4D: = 0.028). Right ventricular (RV) measurements in 4D showed no significant differences, but there were notable disparities in 2D and 4D volumes within each platform ( < 0.01). Significant differences were also found in the LV systolic dyssynchrony index ( = 0.03), LV longitudinal strain ( = 0.04), LV twist ( = 0.004), and LV torsion ( = 0.005). Valve structure assessments varied, with more abnormalities noted on the Philips platform.

Conclusion: Although LV and RV volumetric measurements are generally comparable, significant differences in LVEDV, LV strain metrics, and 2D vs. 4D measurements exist. These variations should be considered when using different platforms for patient follow-ups.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11465166PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjimp/qyae097DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

differences
5
cross-platform variations
4
variations transthoracic
4
transthoracic echocardiography
4
measurements
4
echocardiography measurements
4
measurements clinical
4
clinical diagnosis
4
diagnosis aims
4
aims accurate
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!