| 程春玥,杨春江,唐毅,邓丹,陈镜宇,孙妮,朱丽容,樊莉.不同仪器及软件定量分析正常儿童心肌应变差异[J].中国医学影像技术,2021,37(6):875~879 |
| 不同仪器及软件定量分析正常儿童心肌应变差异 |
| Differences of quantitative analysis of myocardial strain in normal children with different instruments and software |
| 投稿时间：2020-11-02 修订日期：2021-04-11 |
| DOI：10.13929/j.issn.1003-3289.2021.06.019 |
| 中文关键词: 儿童 心室功能,左 超声心动描记术 |
| 英文关键词:child ventricular function, left echocardiography |
| 基金项目:重庆市社会事业与民生保障科技创新专项（cstc2017shmsA130082）。 |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 2324 |
| 全文下载次数: 644 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 评估斑点追踪成像（STE）用于临床测量正常儿童的可行性；观察采用不同仪器及配套软件所测心肌应变参数的差异。方法 以GE Vivid E9及 Philips Epiq 5超声仪对50名正常儿童采集超声心动图，比较EchoPac 203及QLab 10.8软件定量测量左心室整体纵向应变（GLS）及3个切面纵向应变（LS）的均值（GLPSA2C、GLPSLAX、GLPSA4C）的差异，评价不同仪器及相应软件之间测量数据的一致性。结果 最终纳入30名儿童，软件图像追踪成功率为69.77%。以EchoPac和QLab软件测得的应变数据分别为GLS（21.83±1.80、26.32±2.16）、GLPSA2C（-20.99±1.50，-25.33±2.93）、GLPSLAX（-21.20±1.98，-26.04±2.75）、GLPSA4C（-21.37±1.74，-25.37±2.65），QLab软件所测各应变指标值均高于EchoPac（P均<0.01），其中GLS绝对差异高达4.51%应变单位；各参数组内相关系数（ICC）分别为0.31、0.15、0.23及0.17。结论 不同仪器及软件评估左心室GLS测值差异主要为仪器、软件及图像质量等因素所致；由同一检查者采用相同仪器及软件对相同受试者进行评估及随访有利于保证STE测值的准确性及可靠性。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To evaluate the feasibility of clinical application of speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) in normal children,and to observe the differences of strain parameters measured with different instruments and software. Methods Echocardiographic data of 50 children volunteers were collected with GE Vivid E9 and Philips Epiq 5 supersonic vendors. The differences of quantitative left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS) and the mean of longitudinal strain (LS) of the three views (GLPSA2C, GLPSLAX, GLPSA4C) obtained with EchoPac 203 and QLab 10.8 software were compared, and the consistency of measurements of these two software was evaluated. Results Finally 30 children were enrolled. The success rate of software image detection was 69.77%. The parameter strain data obtained with EchoPac and QLab software were GLS (21.83±1.80, 26.32±2.16), GLPSA2C (-20.99±1.50, -25.33±2.93), GLPSLAX (-21.20±1.98, -26.04±2.75), GLPSA4C (-21.37±1.74, -25.37±2.65), and the data measured with QLab software were significantly higher than those with EchoPac software (all P<0.01), among which the absolute difference of GLS was as high as 4.51% strain units. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of groups of parameters was 0.31,0.15, 0.23 and 0.17, respectively. Conclusion The differences of left ventricular GLS measured with 2 instruments and supporting software were mainly caused by the differences of instruments, software and image quality and other factors. Using the same instrument and software by the same examiner for evaluation and following-up of the same subjects would increase the accuracy and reliability of STE measurement. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
