JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007; 49:217-226, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2006.08.045 (Published online 28 December 2006).
© 2007 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow View Online Videos
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cannesson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Gorcsan, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Cannesson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Gorcsan, J., III

A Novel Two-Dimensional Echocardiographic Image Analysis System Using Artificial Intelligence-Learned Pattern Recognition for Rapid Automated Ejection Fraction

Maxime Cannesson, MD*,2, Masaki Tanabe, MD*, Matthew S. Suffoletto, MD*, Dennis M. McNamara, MD, FACC*, Shobhit Madan, MD{dagger}, Joan M. Lacomis, MD{dagger} and John Gorcsan, III, MD, FACC*,1,*

* Cardiovascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
{dagger} Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


Figure 1
View larger version (47K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 1 Auto EF Automated Time–Volume Curves

Examples of left ventricular (LV) endocardial tracings by Auto ejection fraction (EF) of the apical 4- chamber and 2-chamber views (left) and corresponding volume curves and EF (right). (A) A patient with normal ventricular function. (B) A heart failure patient with LV dysfunction.

Please see the for accompanying videos.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 2 Auto EF Versus Manual Biplane Simpson’s Rule

Ejection fraction (EF) scatter plots with linear regression (left) and Bland-Altman (right) analyses of assessment of biplane left ventricular EF by Auto EF versus manual tracings using Simpson’s rule, demonstrating a close correlation and narrow limits of agreement.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 3 Auto EF Versus Manual Biplane Simpson’s Rule Volumes

Scatter plots with linear regression (left) and Bland-Altman (right) analyses of assessment of left ventricular end-diastolic (top) and end-systolic (bottom) volumes by Auto EF versus manual tracings using Simpson’s rule, demonstrating a close correlation with a tendency for slight underestimation of volume by Auto EF.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 4 Comparison of Auto EF in Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease Versus Others

Scatter plots with linear regression (left) and Bland-Altman (right) analyses of assessment of biplane ejection fraction (EF) by Auto EF versus manual tracings in 97 patients with ischemic disease (top) and regional wall abnormalities and 53 patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (bottom), demonstrating similar close correlations and narrow limits of agreement.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 5 Auto EF Versus Visual EF by Expert Readers

Scatter plots with linear regression (left) and Bland-Altman (right) analyses of assessment of biplane left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) by Auto EF versus visual assessment by expert readers, demonstrating a significant correlation but wider limits of agreement. The EF was visually estimated by 5% ranges, which appear as horizontal bars.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 6 Auto EF Versus Visual EF by Novice Readers

Results of linear regression (top) and Bland-Altman (bottom) analyses of assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) by novice trainee readers compared with manual biplane tracing by expert readers. Their visual assessment (left) was in 5% ranges and appear as vertical bars. Their results operating Auto EF for the first time (right) demonstrate a closer correlation and more favorable limits of agreement.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 7 Auto EF Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Scatter plots with linear regression (left) and Bland-Altman (right) analyses of assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) by Auto EF versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (top) and combined end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes from the same patients (bottom), demonstrating significant correlations but underestimation of absolute volumes.

 




HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 2007 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.