Quantitative assessment of left ventricular size and function in cardiac transplant recipients: Side‐by‐side comparison of real time two‐dimensional echocardiography, contrast‐enhanced two‐dimensional echocardiography, three‐dimensional echocardiography, and contrast‐enhanced three‐dimensional echocardiography as compared to magnetic resonance imaging

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

We evaluate the ability of 2D non‐contrast‐enhanced echocardiography (CE‐echo), 2DCE‐echo, 3D‐echo, 3D non‐CE‐echo, and 3DCE‐echo to evaluate allograft function and dimensions in orthotropic heart transplantation (OHT). Cardiac resonance (CMR) was used as reference.
Twenty six consecutive OHT‐recipients were prospectively recruited. Bland–Altman, Spearman rank, and concordance‐correlation coefficients (CCC) were determined.
Good CCCs were found between the four modalities and CMR for ejection fraction (r ≥ 0.72/P < 0.001; r ≥ 0.77/ P < 0.001; r ≥ 0.51/ P < 0.23; r ≥ 0.75/ P < 0.001, respectively). Highest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was for 2D CE‐echo(CCC = 0.77). End‐diastolic volume(EDV) measurements statistically differed when 2D non‐CE‐echo, 2DCE‐echo, and 3D non‐CE‐echo were compared with the cross‐sectional imaging modalities, but they did not differ significantly from 3DCE‐echo. End‐systolic volume (ESV) and stroke volume (SV) differed statistically between the four modalities; however, SV measured by CMR and 3DCE‐echo were comparable. Overall, 2D non‐CE‐echo, 2DCE‐echo, and 3D non‐CE‐echo showed lower mean EDV, ESV, and SV than CMR. ICC was that of the ESV variable in the 4 techniques, with the values of the ICC of the 3DCE‐echo technique superior to the rest. Overall, the best CCC were found for 3DCE(r = 0.88, 0.92 and 0.76 for EDV, ESV and SV, respectively).
Routine use of 3DCE‐echo may allow more comprehensive cardiac assessment in cardiac transplant recipients.