Right ventricular quantification using 3D echocardiography: a comparison with CMR

Abstract

Abstract Background Volumetric and functional right ventricular (RV) indices such as ejection fraction (EF) and global strains are known independent predictors of adverse cardiovascular events. While cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging remains the reference standard for volume quantification, echocardiography is more accessible and allows for rapid ventricular assessment. Compared to conventional 2D echocardiography, 3D echocardiography (3DE) enables full volume acquisitions and the ability to circumvent geometric assumptions. Given the complexity of RV geometry and sensitivity to image plane positioning, this advantage offers the potential to obtain more accurate diagnostic measurements. Purpose Tools for RV analysis in 3DE have been less extensively studied compared to those for the left ventricle (LV). We sought to quantify discrepancies in RV indices derived from 3DE and CMR. Methods Transthoracic real-time 3DE and cine CMR imaging were performed in 20 prospectively recruited participants (12 patients with acquired cardiac disease and 8 healthy controls), <1 hour apart. Dynamic 3D biventricular models were constructed semi-automatically from CMR by identifying fiducial landmarks, correcting in-plane breath-hold mis-registrations, and interactively fitting contours to the endocardial and epicardial borders on long- and short-axis slices. For 3DE, right ventricular endocardial models were created by fitting contours on 2D image planes resampled from the 3D volume at end-diastole and end-systole, which were subsequently tracked over one cardiac cycle (Figure 1). RV indices including end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), EF, global longitudinal strain (GLS), and global circumferential strain (GCS) were calculated from the 3DE- and CMR-derived 3D geometric models and compared. Paired-sample t-tests were performed to identify statistically significant differences (where P<0.05), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for absolute agreement were computed to assess the reliability for each measurement. Results Differences (mean ± SD) in RV indices between 3DE and CMR, with corresponding ICCs are presented in Table 1. Statistically significant differences in RV EDV, ESV, EF, and GLS were observed, with 3DE consistently underestimating volumes and overestimating function when compared to CMR. Although a statistically significant difference in RV GCS was not observed, a low ICC score indicated poor reliability. Conclusions Volume underestimation in RV indices between 3DE and CMR were found to be larger than those previously reported for the LV, which is likely due to the increased geometric complexity and surface area to volume ratio for the RV. Moreover, 3DE tends to overestimate RV function in terms of EF and GLS, which may impact treatment pathways if used in a clinical setting. Recognising systematic differences between modalities reinforces the need to further develop 3DE technologies for more accurate RV quantification. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Health Research Council (HRC) of New Zealand;National Heart Foundation (NHF) of New Zealand