Evaluation of right ventricular function by fully automated three-dimensional echocardiography right ventricular quantification software in patients after heart transplantation / 中华超声影像学杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To explore the feasibility, accuracy and reproducibility of a novel, fully automated three-dimensional echocardiography right ventricular(RV) quantification software(3D Anto RV) to evaluate the RV volume and RV ejection fraction (RVEF) using artificial intelligence in patients after heart transplantation (HT) comparing with the gold reference-cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR).Methods:Forty-six patients after HT who were scheduled for echocardiogram at their routine follow-up examinations and also agreed to undergo CMR examination within the following 24 hours in Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology from October 2018 to June 2019 were prospectively included. The right ventricular end-diastolic volume (RVEDV), right ventricular end-systolic volume (RVESV), right ventricular stroke volume (RVSV) and RVEF of HT patients were measured by CMR 3D Auto RV and conventional semi-automated three-dimensional echocardiography RV quantification software (Tomtec 4D RV function 2.0). The results of the 3D Auto RV and conventional semi-automated Tomtec were respectively compared with CMR using paired two-tailed student′s t-tests, Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analyses. Results:The feasibility of the 3D Auto RV was 87%.The fully automated analysis realized in 27 (59%) patients by 3D Auto RV and the analysis time required only (12±1)s. The results of the remaining 19 (41%) patients needed manual adjustment and the mean analysis time in manual adjustment was also <2 min that was shorter than the conventional semi-automated three-dimensional echocardiography RV quantification software[(108±15)s vs (160±34)s, P<0.001]. For the results of RV volumes There were good correlations between the 3D Auto RV and CMR, conventional semi-automated Tomtec and CMR for the measurements of RVEDV, RVESV and RVSV ( r=0.77-0.84, all P<0.001). In addition, compared with CMR, although there were significantly underestimated RV volumes by the 3D Auto RV and conventional semi-automated Tomtec, the negative bias was smaller in the 3D Auto RV than the conventional semi-automated Tomtec. For the results of RVEF the corresponding RVEF derived from 3D Auto RV and CMR showed an excellent correlation and consistency ( r=0.84, P<0.001; bias=-1.1%, Limit of agreement=-8.1%-6.0%). In addition, the correlations between the manual adjustment by 3D Auto RV and the CMR ( r=0.63-0.72, all P<0.001) was lower than the correlations between the 3D Auto RV and the CMR ( r=0.76-0.82, all P<0.001) for RV volumes and RVEF.Finally, 3D Auto RV had a good reproducibility. Conclusions:The new fully 3D Auto RV quantification software underestimate RV volumes that less than the conventional semi-automated Tomtec. And the 3D Auto RV quantification software can accurately evaluate the RVEF in patients after HT with rapid analysis and higher reproducibility, which may also support the routine adoption of this method during follow-ups of HT patients in the daily clinical workflow.