Fig 1.
Flow chart of the study population.
3DE, three-dimensional echocardiography; CMR, cardiac magnetic resonance; DHM, Dynamic HeartModel; LV, left ventricular.
Table 1.
Clinical characteristics in study population (n = 65).
Fig 2.
Box and whiskers (minimum to maximum) of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (A), left ventricular end-systolic volume (B), and left ventricular ejection fraction (C) between cardiac magnetic resonance disk-summation method and 3D echocardiography with automated quantification software (Dynamic HeartModel) according to change in border setting.
LVEDV, end-diastolic volume; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESV, left ventricular end-systolic volume. #: p<0.05 compared with CMR.
Fig 3.
Bland-Altman analysis of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (Fig 3A), left ventricular end-systolic volume (Fig 3B), and left ventricular ejection fraction (Fig 3C) between cardiac magnetic resonance disk-summation method and 3D echocardiography with automated quantification software (Dynamic HeartModel) according to change in border setting from 10 to 100.
A, border threshold of 10; B, border threshold of 20; C, border threshold of 30; D, border threshold of 40; E, border threshold of 50; F, border threshold of 60; G, border threshold of 70; H, border threshold of 80: I, border threshold of 90; J, border threshold of 100.
Table 2.
Comparison of LV volumes and EF between Dynamic HeartModel and CMR disk-area summation method (n = 57).
Fig 4.
Box and whiskers (minimum to maximum) graphs of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (A), left ventricular end-systolic volume (B), and left ventricular ejection fraction (C) between cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking and 3D echocardiography with automated quantification software (Dynamic HeartModel) according to change in border setting.
Fig 5.
Bland-Altman analysis of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (Fig 5A), left ventricular end-systolic volume (Fig 5B), and left ventricular ejection fraction (Fig 5C) between cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking method and 3D echocardiography with automated quantification software (Dynamic HeartModel) according to change in border setting from 10 to 100.
A, border threshold of 10; B, border threshold of 20; C, border threshold of 30; D, border threshold of 40; E, border threshold of 50; F, border threshold of 60; G, border threshold of 70; H, border threshold of 80: I, border threshold of 90; J, border threshold of 100.
Table 3.
Comparison of LV volumes and EF between Dynamic HeartModel and CMR FT method (n = 55).
Fig 6.
Left ventricular end-diastolic endocardial border tracing line used by different LV endocardial border threshold in a representative case.
Upper, middle, and lower panels show apical 4-chamber, 2-chamber, and long-axis views extracted from 3D dataset. A, no border line; B, border threshold of 0; C, border threshold of 50; D, border threshold of 80; E, border threshold of 90; F, border threshold of 100.
Fig 7.
Representative cases for left ventricular (LV) volume curves generated by fully automated quantification software and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) feature tracking method.
A: A case of good correlation. Left upper panel shows apical 4-chamber view of Dynamic HeartModel and left lower panel shows apical 4-chamber view of CMR feature tracking. Middle panel shows LV volume curves by both methods. Right panel shows their correlation. From LV volume curves during one cardiac cycle, we extracted 100 data points using interpolation and digitalization of the curve. B: A case of poor correlation. Note timing of maximum and minimum LV volume is different.
Fig 8.
A linear correlation (upper panels) and Bland-Altman analysis (lower panels) of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (A), left ventricular end-systolic volume (B), and left ventricular ejection fraction (C) between Dynamic HeartModel and HeartModel with use of a border threshold value of 80 at both end-diastole and end-systole.