Table 1. Comparison of left ventricular volume between 2D/3D echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance.

Studies	Subjects	n	3DE vs. CMR						2DE vs. CMR
			EDV (ml)*	p	ESV (ml)*	p	EF (%)*	p	EDV (ml)*	p	ESV (ml)*	p	EF (%)*	p
Jenkins et al.,JACC 2004	Mixed patients	50	-4 ± 29	0.31	-3 ± 18	0.23	0 ± 7	0.74	-54 ± 33	< 0.01	.-28 ± 28	< 0.01	-1 ± 13	0.76
Caiani et al.,JASE 2005	Mixed patients	46	.-4.1 ± 30	ns	-3.5 ± 34	ns	-0.8 ± 14	ns	-23.1 ± 86	< 0.001	-18.7 ± 60	< 0.001	3.7 ± 16	< 0.001
Jacobs et al.,Eur Heart J 2006	Mixed patients	50	-14 ± 17	< 0.05	-6.5 ± 16	< 0.05	-1 ± 6.4	0.27	-23 ± 29	< 0.05	-15 ± 24	< 0.05	0.8 ± 8.5	0.57
Greupner et al.,JACC 2012	Mixed patients	36	-18.3 ± 0.7	0.004	-13 ± 13.5	0.005	2.7 ± 1.2	ns	-25.8 ± 6	< 0.001	-14.3 ± 18.2	0.002	0.7 ± 1.3	ns

CMR, cardiac magnetic resonance; EDV, end-diastolic volume; EF, ejection fraction; ESV, end-systolic volume; ns, not significant; 2D, two-dimensional; 2DE, two-dimensional echocardiography; 3D, three-dimensional; 3DE, three-dimensional echocardiography.

* Mean difference between 3DE or 2DE, and MRI.