LEFT VENTRICULAR EJECTION FRACTION: COMPARISON BETWEEN TRUE VOLUME-BASED MEASUREMENTS AND AREA-BASED ESTIMATES

• Published in: 2018 IEEE Western New York Image and Signal Processing Workshop (WNYISPW) 2018-10, p.1-5
• Main Authors: Liu, Dawei, Peck, Isabelle, Dangi, Shusil, Schwarz, Karl Q., Linte, Cristian A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 3D reconstruction; Area measurement; Blood; Data models; echocardiography; Image reconstruction; left ventricular ejection fraction; Mathematical model; Solid modeling; Three-dimensional displays
• ISSN: 2471-9242
• DOI: 10.1109/WNYIPW.2018.8576438

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a critical measure of cardiac health commonly acquired in clinical practice, which serves as the basis for cardiovascular therapeutic treatment. Ultrasound (US) imaging of the heart is the most common, least expensive, reliable and non-invasive modality to assess LVEF. Cardiologists, in practice, persistently use 2D US images to provide visual estimates of LVEF, which are based on 2D information embedded in the US images by examining the area changes in LV blood pool between diastole and systole. There has been some anecdotal evidence that visual estimation of the LVEF based on the area changes of the LV blood pool significantly underestimate true LVEF. True LVEF should be calculated based on changes in LV volumes between diastole and systole. In this project, we utilized both idealized models of the LV geometry - a truncated prolate spheroid (TPS) and a paraboloid model - to represent the LV anatomy. Cross-sectional areas and volumes of simulated LV shapes using both models were calculated to compare the LVEF. Further, a LV reconstruction algorithm was employed to build the LV blood pool volume in both systole and diastole from multi-plane 2D US imaging data. Our mathematical models yielded an area-based LVEF of 41 ± 4.7% and a volume-based LVEF of 55 ± 5.7%, while the 3D reconstruction model showed an area-based LVEF of 35 ± 11.9% and a volume-based LVEF of 48.0 ± 14.0%. In summary, the area-based LVEF using all three models underestimate the volume-based LVEF using corresponding models by 13% to 14%. This preliminary study confirms both mathematically and empirically that area-based LVEF estimates indeed underestimate the true volume-based LVEF measurements and suggests that true volumetric measurements of the LV blood pool must be computed to correctly assess cardiac LVEF.