Tomographic three-dimensional echocardiographic determination of chamber size and systolic function in patients with left ventricular aneurysm: Comparison to magnetic resonance imaging, cineventriculography, and two- dimensional echocardiography

Background: Two-dimensional (2D) echocardiographic approaches based on geometric assumptions face the greatest limitations and inaccuracies in patient with left ventricular (LV) aneurysms. Three-dimensional (3D) echocardiographic techniques can potentially overcome these limitations; to date, however, although tested in experimental models of aneurysms, they have not been applied to a series of patients with such distortion. The purpose of this study was therefore to validate the clinical application of tomographic 3D echocardiography (3DE) by the routine transthoracic approach to determine LV chamber size and systolic function without geometric assumptions in patients with LV aneurysms. Methods and Results: In 23 patients with chronic stable LV aneurysms, LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes (LVEDV, LVESV) and ejection fraction (LVEF) by tomographic 3DE were compared with results from 3D magnetic resonance tomography (3DMRT) as an independent reference as well as with the conventional techniques of single plane and biplane cineventriculography. Dynamic 3DE image data sets were obtained from a transthoracic apical view with the use of a rotating probe with acquisition gated to control for ECG and respiration (Echoscan, TomTec). Volumes were calculated from the 3D data sets by summating the volumes of multiple parallel disks. 3DE results correlated and agreed well with those by 3DMRT, with better correlation and agreement than provided by other techniques for LVEDV (3DE: r=.97, see=14.7 mL, SD of differences from 3DMRT=14.5 mL; other techniques: r=.84 to .93, SEE=30.7 to 41.6 mL [P<.001 versus 3DE by F test], SD of differences=31.5 to 40.7 mL [P<.001 versus 3DE by F test]). The same also pertained to LVESV (3DE: r=.97, SEE=12.4 mL, SD of differences=12.9 mL; other techniques: r=.81 to .90, SEE=24.7 to 37.2 mL [P<.001], SD of differences=27.6 to 36.8 mL [P<.005]) and LVEF (3DE: r=.74, SEE=5.6%, SD of differences=6.7%; other techniques: r=.14 to .59, SEE=9.5% to 10.1% [P<.01], SD of differences=9.5% to 12.6% [P<0.5]). Compared with 3DMRT, 3DE was less time consuming and patient discomfort was less. Conclusions: Tomographic 3DE is an accurate noninvasive technique for calculating LV volumes and systolic function in patients with LV aneurysm. Unlike current 2D methods, tomographic 3DE requires no geometric assumptions that limit accuracy.