Speckle tracking echocardiography in healthy children: comparison between the QLAB by Philips and the EchoPAC by General Electric.
Adolescent
Age Factors
Child
Child, Preschool
Cross-Sectional Studies
Echocardiography
/ instrumentation
Equipment Design
Feasibility Studies
Female
France
Healthy Volunteers
Heart Ventricles
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Infant
Male
Observer Variation
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
Software Design
Ventricular Function, Left
Ventricular Function, Right
2D strain
Inter-vendor
Pediatric cardiology
Pediatrics
Variability
Journal
The international journal of cardiovascular imaging
ISSN: 1875-8312
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100969716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
21
10
2018
accepted:
15
12
2018
pubmed:
10
1
2019
medline:
29
5
2019
entrez:
10
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) has become a useful tool in cardiology but remains scarcely developed in pediatrics. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of STE analyses in healthy children and compare reliability of STE for left and right ventricles (LV, RV) between the EchoPAC (GE Healthcare) and the QLAB (Philips Healthcare) software systems. Healthy children were screened for this prospective cross-sectional study. Analyses were performed upon five levels of variability: intra/inter-ultrasound system, intra/inter-sonographer and intra/inter-analyzer. The feasibility was measured, and the tracking quality informed. The study included 156 healthy children. Mean age was 7.6 ± 5 years [1 month-16.8 years]. Conventional echocardiography variables were similar in both ultrasound systems. For both software brands, the tracking quality was excellent in the LV longitudinal and circumferential displacements, but more limited in the RV free wall longitudinal strain. Inter-ultrasound system correlation was poor for global longitudinal and circumferential LV strain (ICC of 0.34 [IC95% 0.06-0.57]) and 0.12 [IC95% - 0.18 to - 0.40], respectively). We observed poor inter-sonographer reliability for both global LV longitudinal strain and global LV circumferential strain with the two software systems. Inter-analyzer variability was good especially for the global LV circumferential strain using Philips software (ICC of 0.78 [IC95% 0.52-0.91]). In pediatrics, the Philips/GE inter-vendor level of variability in STE analysis is mainly due to inter ultrasound systems and inter sonographers' differences. These results need to be taken into account when using STE analysis in the follow-up of cardiac children. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02056925.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30623351
doi: 10.1007/s10554-018-01516-2
pii: 10.1007/s10554-018-01516-2
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02056925']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
799-809Subventions
Organisme : Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Montpellier
ID : UF9167
Références
Eur J Echocardiogr. 2000 Sep;1(3):154-70
pubmed: 11916589
Circulation. 2006 Feb 21;113(7):960-8
pubmed: 16476850
Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2007 Aug 30;5:27
pubmed: 17760964
Am J Cardiol. 2008 Aug 1;102(3):335-9
pubmed: 18638597
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2008 Nov;21(11):1207-15
pubmed: 18992672
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2008 Dec;21(12):1309-17
pubmed: 19041574
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Aug 11;54(7):618-24
pubmed: 19660692
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010 May;23(5):465-95; quiz 576-7
pubmed: 20451803
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010 Sep;23(9):919-28
pubmed: 20655173
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Sep 28;56(14):1149-57
pubmed: 20863956
J Ultrasound Med. 2011 Jan;30(1):71-83
pubmed: 21193707
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011 Jun;24(6):625-36
pubmed: 21392941
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2012 May;13(3):259-64
pubmed: 21760563
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012 Mar;25(3):304-12
pubmed: 22196884
J Cardiol. 2012 Aug;60(2):145-9
pubmed: 22483098
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Mar;14(3):235-9
pubmed: 22782958
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Mar;15(3):324-31
pubmed: 24057661
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 Jan;27(1):50-4
pubmed: 24120317
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 May;27(5):549-60, e3
pubmed: 24582163
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Apr;16(4):380-8
pubmed: 25300523
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 Dec;27(12):1344-51
pubmed: 25306221
Echocardiography. 2015 May;32(5):787-96
pubmed: 25323591
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Feb;28(2):183-93
pubmed: 25623220
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jun;28(6):642-8.e7
pubmed: 25636366
Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 Apr;99(4):1342-7
pubmed: 25725925
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jun;28(6):630-41
pubmed: 25747915
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Aug;28(8):999-1008
pubmed: 25906753
Can J Cardiol. 2015 Jun;31(6):760-6
pubmed: 25935885
Pediatr Cardiol. 2015 Dec;36(8):1610-6
pubmed: 26049414
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Oct;28(10):1149-56
pubmed: 26165446
Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2016 Feb;109(2):120-7
pubmed: 26850171
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Feb;9(2):e003866
pubmed: 26860970
Congenit Heart Dis. 2016 Mar-Apr;11(2):199-207
pubmed: 26879728
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Aug 15;217:28-34
pubmed: 27179205
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Jun 1;18(6):707-716
pubmed: 27330151
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Echo Res Pract. 2016 Sep;3(3):85-93
pubmed: 27628098
Echocardiography. 2016 Dec;33(12):1903-1910
pubmed: 27739163
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017 Feb 20;12(1):39
pubmed: 28219442
JRSM Cardiovasc Dis. 2017 Jun 06;6:2048004017712862
pubmed: 28660071
Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2017 Oct;110(10):562-571
pubmed: 28669483
Circulation. 2018 Jan 30;137(5):508-518
pubmed: 29378757
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984 Oct;4(4):715-24
pubmed: 6207218