Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
Fully Automated 3D echocardiographic algorithms: Accurate and time saving - the answer for 3D in routine clinical practice?
Session:
Posters (Sessão 4 - Écran 3) - Imagem multimodal 1
Speaker:
Bruno Castilho
Congress:
CPC 2023
Topic:
B. Imaging
Theme:
03. Imaging
Subtheme:
03.6 Cross-Modality and Multi-Modality Imaging Topics
Session Type:
Pósters Electrónicos
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Bruno Miranda Castilho; Gustavo Campos; Jose Almeida; Rita Veiga; Ana Filipa Damásio; Kevin Domingues; Rogério Teixeira; Lino Gonçalves
Abstract
<p><span style="font-size:20pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif">INTRODUCTION</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">3D left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) quantification methods are more accurate and reproducible than 2D echocardiography, however, conventional 3D is time consuming and requires extensive user expertise, thus hindering its routine implementation in busy echocardiography laboratories and its use by inexperienced physicians. HeartModel<sup>A.I.</sup> (HM) is a simple, fast, recently validated 3D automated analysis software that detects LV endocardial surfaces and calculates LVEF. The aim of this work is to evaluate the performance of HM with experienced and inexperienced physicians, its time saving potential and to assess whether this software can be a better alternative to 2D measurements in routine echocardiography. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:20pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif">METHODS</span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Prospective analysis of 30 nonconsecutive patients referred for transthoracic echocardiogram in a university hospital echocardiography lab, from 1<sup>st</sup> February 2021 to 31<sup>st</sup> March 2021. </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">2D biplane LVEF was measured by an experienced and inexperienced physician (less than 250 echocardiograms performed), then the same physicians used the automated analysis software (HM, Philips®) to assess LVEF (blinded for each other results). The time to make the measurements was registered. Comparisons of agreement between LVEF measurements ( experienced <em>versus </em>inexperienced physicians) included linear regression with Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analyses to assess the bias and limits of agreement (defined as 2 SD around the mean<span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:"AdvDailynews",serif">).</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:20pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif">RESULTS</span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">A total of 30 patients were included, mean age of 68.6 ± 20.1 years and 60% male. </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HM showed significantly lower acquisition times in both inexperienced (72±17s <em>versus</em> 173± 44s, P<0.01) and experienced (56±12s <em>versus</em> 126±29s, P<0.01<span style="font-size:10.0pt">)</span> physicians. The difference in time of acquisition between 2D and HM was approximately 101s for inexperienced users and around 70s for experienced users. Regarding LVEF assessment, HM acquisitions compared to 2D measurements showed stronger correlation between experienced and inexperienced physicians (r= 0,98, P<0,01 <em>versus</em> r= 0,92, P<0,01) with minimal <em>bias</em> (-0,5 <em>versus -0,6)</em> and stronger agreement (HM limits of agreement: ± 5,8% <em>versus </em>2D limits of agreement: ± 12,5%)</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:20pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif">CONCLUSION</span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">3D LVEF assessment by HM significantly reduced acquisition times and exhibited higher interobserver agreement than 2D Simpson’s biplane method. These results suggest that automated 3D algorithms, such as HM, may play a key role in implementing 3D measurements in routine practice in busy echocardiography laboratories and allow the use of 3D echocardiography at early stages of physicians training.</span></span></p> <p> </p>
Slides
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site