Published online May 6, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i13.4050
Peer-review started: September 3, 2021
First decision: December 1, 2021
Revised: December 10, 2021
Accepted: March 14, 2022
Article in press: March 14, 2022
Published online: May 6, 2022
Processing time: 238 Days and 13 Hours
This study used HeartModel (HM), a new software to quickly quantify the left heart volume and left ventricular function in patients with common heart diseases to determine whether there are differences in the feasibility, accuracy, and repeatability of measuring the left ventricular end-diastolic (LVEDV), LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and left atrial end-systolic volume (LAESV) and to compare these measurements with those obtained with traditional methods.
Compared with traditional three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE), HM is easier to operate and boasts better measurement accuracy and repeatability. At present, the application value of HM in quantifying left heart volume and left ventricular function in patients with common heart diseases remains unclear.
The study aimed to assess the value of HM in quantifying the left heart volume and left ventricular function of patients with common heart diseases.
This study retrospectively assessed patients with common heart diseases who were divided into 4 groups: (1) Patients with normal heart shape and function (control group, Group A); (2) patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) (Group B); (3) patients with LV remodeling after acute myocardial infarction (Group C); and (4) patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) (Group D). The measurements obtained were assessed.
HM without regional endocardial border editing (HM-NE) quantified left ventricular volume parameters, obtaining values that were highly correlated and larger than those obtained with advanced cardiac 3D quantification (3DQA) (bias: LVEDV, 28.17 mL; LVESV, 14.92 mL; LAESV, 8.18 mL; LVEF, -0.04%). The correlations between HM without regional endocardial border editing (HM-RE) and 3DQA (rs= 0.91-0.95, P < 0.05 for all) were higher than those between HM-NE (rs= 0.85-0.93, P < 0.05 for all). The correlations of LVEDV and LVESV between HM-RE and 3DQA were good for the control group, dilated cardiomyopathy group and segmental wall motion abnormality group, but remained weak for the HCM group (rs= 0.48-0.54, P < 0.05 for all). The intraobserver and interobserver variability for the HM-RE measurements were low.
HM can accurately assess the left atrial volume of common clinical heart disease and fibrillation patients with a high correlation.
Future studies should increase the sample size and are confirm that these findings can be extended to more patients.