Semi-automated left ventricular endocardial detection versus hand-tracing in the measurement of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction in daily clinical practice
Authors: Chen L.S , Oon Y.Y , Rawlings C , Sabeng K , Adam S , Lasep H , Pang I.X , Ling H.S , Chandan D.B , Tan C.T , Koh K.T , Cham Y.L , Said A , Fong A.Y.Y , Ong T.K 
Published: October 2021

Abstract

Background
The common method of assessing left ventricle (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (EF) is hand-tracing Biplane Simpson method. Alternatively, ultrasound vendors offer different semi-automated LV endocardial border detection software with anatomical intelligence to assess LV volumes and EF. By using speckle-tracking technique, this software tracks the LV endocardium throughout the cardiac cycle and computes the LV volumes in every image frame using the disk summation method from which a volume-curve is generated, and the EF is calculated using the maximum and minimum volumes obtained. Data on the performance of this method in comparison with the hand-tracing Biplane Simpson method in daily clinical practice is scarce.

Purpose
To determine the accuracy of LV volumes and EF using semi-automated LV endocardial detection tracing, and to compare the reproducibility of this method with the hand-tracing Biplane Simpson method, among operators with varying level of experience in echocardiography.

Methods
This was a single center retrospective observational study, conducted in year 2020. 127 patients, aged &gt;18 years, who underwent clinically indicated transthoracic echocardiography were recruited. The echocardiographic images were analyzed independently in a blinded fashion by 3 operators – a sonographer, a fellow-in-training and a cardiologist specialized in echocardiography. The LV volumes and EF were first measured using hand-tracing Biplane Simpson method, then repeated using semi-automated tracing at a different time and the operator were blinded to the initial hand-tracing measurements.

Results
The mean age of patients was 50±16 years, 35.4% were male, mean body surface area was 1.62±0.18m2, 92.1% were in sinus rhythm, and 61.4% had good acoustic window. Table 1 shows the LV end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV) and EF, measured using different method, by the 3 operators. There were excellent correlation and agreement between semi-automated tracing measurements and hand-tracing measurements of LV EDV (r=0.985, LOA [mean ± 1.96 SD] 16.9 ml, ICC 0.991), ESV (r=0.990, LOA 12.7 ml, ICC 0.994) and EF (r=0.962, LOA 7.43%, ICC 0.967) by experienced cardiologist. The limit of agreement (LOA) between cardiologist and sonographer for semi-automated tracing measurement of LV EDV, ESV and EF were 29.13 ml, 19.74 ml and 9.25% respectively, which was comparable with that of hand-tracing measurement. The agreement between cardiologist and fellow-in-training for semi-automated tracing measurement of LV volumes and EF was slightly better than hand-tracing method, with a LOA of 25.60 ml, 17.48 ml and 7.08%, for EDV, ESV and EF respectively (Table 2).

Conclusion
In daily clinical practice, measurement of LV volumes and EF using semi-automated LV endocardial tracing method is accurate and demonstrates comparable reproducibility with hand-tracing Biplane Simpson method among operators with different level of experience in echocardiography.

Funding Acknowledgement
Type of funding sources: None.