Automatic tablet-based monoplane quantification of stroke volume and left ventricular ejection fraction: A comparative assessment against computer-based biplane and monoplane tools.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care cardiovascular left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) quantification is established, but automatic tablet-based stroke volume (SV) quantification with handheld ultrasound (HAND) devices is unexplored. We evaluated a tablet-based monoplane LVEF and LV volume quantification tool (AutoEF) against a computer-based tool (Tomtec) for LVEF and SV quantification. METHODS: Patients underwent HAND scans, and LVEF and SV were quantified using AutoEF and computer-based software that utilized either apical four-chamber views (Auto Strain-monoplane [AS-mono]) or both apical four-chamber and apical two-chamber views (Auto Strain-biplane [AS-bi]). Correlation and Bland-Altman analysis were used to compare AutoEF with AS-mono and AS-bi. RESULTS: Out of 43 participants, eight were excluded. AutoEF showed a correlation of .83 [.69:.91] with AS-mono for LVEF and .68 [.44:.82] for SV. The correlation with AS-bi was .79 [.62:.89] for LVEF and .66 [.42:.81] for SV. The bias between AutoEF and AS-mono was 4.88% [3.15:6.61] for LVEF and 17.46 mL [12.99:21.92] for SV. The limits of agreement (LOA) were [-5.50:15.26]% for LVEF and [-8.02:42.94] mL for SV. The bias between AutoEF and AS-bi was 6.63% [5.31:7.94] for LVEF and 20.62 mL [16.18:25.05] for SV, with LOA of [-1.20:14.47]% for LVEF and [-4.71:45.94] mL for SV. CONCLUSION: LVEF quantification with AutoEF software was accurate and reliable, but SV quantification showed limitations, indicating non-interchangeability with neither AS-mono nor AS-bi. Further refinement of AutoEF is needed for reliable SV quantification at the point of care.

Evaluation of the image quality and validity of handheld echocardiography for stroke volume and left ventricular ejection fraction quantification: a method comparison study.

Bedside quantification of stroke volume (SV) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is valuable in hemodynamically compromised patients. Miniaturized handheld ultrasound (HAND) devices are now available for clinical use. However, the performance level of HAND devices for quantified cardiac assessment is yet unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the validity of HAND measurements with standard echocardiography (SE) and three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE). Thirty-six patients were scanned with HAND, SE and 3DE. LVEF and SV quantification was done with automated software for the HAND, SE and 3DE dataset. The image quality of HAND and SE was evaluated by scoring segmental endocardial border delineation (2 = good, 1 = poor, 0 = invisible). LVEF and SV of HAND was evaluated against SE and 3DE using correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. The correlation, bias, and limits of agreement (LOA) between HAND and SE were 0.68 [0.46:0.83], 1.60% [- 2.18:5.38], and 8.84% [- 9.79:12.99] for LVEF, and 0.91 [0.84:0.96], 1.32 ml [- 0.36:4.01], 15.54 ml [- 18.70:21.35] for SV, respectively. Correlation, bias, and LOA between HAND and 3DE were 0.55 [0.6:0.74], - 0.56% [- 2.27:1.1], and 9.88% [- 13.29:12.17] for LVEF, and 0.79 [0.62:0.89], 6.78 ml [2.34:11.21], 12.14 ml [- 26.32:39.87] for SV, respectively. The image quality scores were 9.42 ± 2.0 for the apical four chamber views of the HAND dataset and 10.49 ± 1.7 for the SE dataset and (P < 0.001). Clinically acceptable accuracy, precision, and image quality was demonstrated for HAND measurements compared to SE. In comparison to 3DE, HAND showed a clinically acceptable accuracy and precision for LVEF quantification.