Optimal threshold of three-dimensional echocardiographic fully automated software for quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction: Comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance disk-area summation method and feature tracking method.

Victor Chien-Chia Wu, Tetuji Kitano, Yosuke Nabeshima, Kyoko Otani, Pao-Hsien Chu, Masaaki Takeuchi

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study

In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Correction: Optimal threshold of three-dimensional echocardiographic fully automated software for quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction: Comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance disk-area summation method and feature tracking method.PloS one · 2019
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

Erratum issued
Correction: Optimal threshold of three-dimensional echocardiographic fully automated software for quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction: Comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance disk-area summation method and feature tracking method.2019

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Victor Chien-Chia WuDepartment of Laboratory and Transfusion Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9918-4369

Tetuji KitanoSecond Department of Internal Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Medicine, Kitakyushu, Japan.

Yosuke NabeshimaSecond Department of Internal Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Medicine, Kitakyushu, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-4329-2819

Kyoko OtaniDepartment of Laboratory and Transfusion Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan.

Pao-Hsien ChuDivision of Cardiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-0361-6348

Masaaki TakeuchiDepartment of Laboratory and Transfusion Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsNovel fully automated left chamber quantification software for three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) has a potential for reliable measurement of left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the optimal setting of global LV endocardial border threshold has not been settled. METHODS AND

resultsWe performed LV volumes and LVEF analysis using fully automated left chamber quantification software (Dynamic HeartModelA.I., Philips Medical Systems) in 65 patients who had undergone both 3DE and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) examinations on the same day. We recorded LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) according to the change in LV global border threshold settings from 0-point to 100-point with each increment of 10-point. These values were compared to the corresponding values of CMR with disk-area summation method and feature tracking (FT) method. Coverage probability (CP) was calculated as an index of accuracy and reliability. Fully automated software provided LV volumes and LVEF in 57 patients (Feasibility: 88%). LVEDV and LVESV increased steadily according to the increase in border threshold and reached minimal bias when border threshold setting was 80 against CMR disk-summation method and 90 against CMR FT method. Corresponding CP of LVEF was 0.74 and 0.84 against disk-area summation method and FT method.

conclusionsWith CMR values as a reference, LV endocardial border threshold value can be set around 80 to 90 with the same number of LV end-diastole and end-systole threshold to approximate LVEDV, LVESV and LVEF with clinically acceptable CP values of LVEF.

Indexed as

Heart VentriclesSoftwareStroke VolumeAgedEchocardiography, Three-DimensionalFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30689657

DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0211154

PMCPMC6349335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.