Effect of cross-platform variations on transthoracic echocardiography measurements and clinical diagnosis

• Published in: European Heart Journal. Imaging Methods and Practice Vol. 2; no. 3; p. qyae097
• Main Authors: Hashemi, Mohammad Saber, Farsiani, Yasaman, Pressman, Gregg S, Amini, M Reza, Kheradvar, Arash
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Oxford University Press 01-07-2024
• Subjects: Original; three-dimensional echocardiography; ejection fraction; right ventricle; left ventricle; reproducibility; volumes; transthoracic echocardiography; cross-platform variation
• ISSN: 2755-9637; 2755-9637
• DOI: 10.1093/ehjimp/qyae097

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.
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.
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.