108384
论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
- 3.4 Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)
- 3.2 Clin Epidemiol
- 2.6 Cancer Manag Res
- 2.9 Infect Drug Resist
- 3.7 Clin Interv Aging
- 5.1 Drug Des Dev Ther
- 3.1 Int J Chronic Obstr
- 6.6 Int J Nanomed
- 2.6 Int J Women's Health
- 2.9 Neuropsych Dis Treat
- 2.8 OncoTargets Ther
- 2.0 Patient Prefer Adher
- 2.2 Ther Clin Risk Manag
- 2.5 J Pain Res
- 3.0 Diabet Metab Synd Ob
- 3.2 Psychol Res Behav Ma
- 3.4 Nat Sci Sleep
- 1.8 Pharmgenomics Pers Med
- 2.0 Risk Manag Healthc Policy
- 4.1 J Inflamm Res
- 2.0 Int J Gen Med
- 3.4 J Hepatocell Carcinoma
- 3.0 J Asthma Allergy
- 2.2 Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol
- 2.4 J Multidiscip Healthc
心脏模型 A.I. 左心室功能的三维超声心动图评估和参数设置
Authors Xing YY, Xue HY, Ye YQ
Received 5 August 2021
Accepted for publication 21 October 2021
Published 9 November 2021 Volume 2021:14 Pages 7971—7981
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S332855
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser
Objective: This study aims to explore the feasibility of HeartModel A.I. (HM) three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) to assess left ventricular function and discover suitable border parameter settings.
Methods: A total of 113 patients that underwent echocardiography in our hospital were eligible for inclusion. The HM 3DE (HM method) and conventional 3DE (3D method) were used to analyze echocardiography images. The HM was set to different border settings (end-diastolic [ED] and end-systolic [ES] settings) to assess different left ventricular systolic function parameters including left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and left ventricular diastolic function parameters including maximal left atrium volume (LAVMAX). All of these parameters were evaluated using the HM method and then compared with the 3D method.
Results: The differences in LVEDV, LVESV, and LVEF measured with different HM border settings were statistically significant (P< 0.05) and were strongly correlated with the 3D method. For LVEF, the reading using the HM method with ED and ES = 70 and 30 showed the best agreement with the 3D method, and the difference in the readings was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). For LVEDV and LVESV, the reading using the HM method with ED and ES = 40 and 20 showed the best agreement with the 3D method, but the difference in the readings was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The measurements taken using the HM method were more reproducible than those taken using the 3D method (P< 0.05). The measurement time when using the HM method was significantly less than the 3D method (P< 0.05). In terms of LAVMAX, the correlation between the HM and 3D methods was strong, but the requirements for agreement were not satisfied.
Conclusion: Evaluation of the left ventricular function using HM 3DE is feasible, saves time, and is reproducible. To assess the left ventricular function, the border parameter setting of ED and ES = 70 and 30 provided the best fit for the Chinese population.
Keywords: three-dimensional echocardiography, endocardial border delineation, left ventricular function, left ventricular volume