Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Dec 22.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017 Jul 6;30(9):879–885. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2017.05.018

Table 2.

Impact of image quality on the accuracy of the automated chamber quantification

Quality EDV (mL) ESV (mL) EF (%) LAV (mL)
Bias ± SD r value Bias ± SD r value Bias ± SD r value Bias ± SD r value
Good (n = 108) −0.5 ± 9.0 0.99 −0.6 ± 7.0 0.99   0.1 ± 4.4 0.94 1.3 ± 6.5 0.97
Adequate (n = 89) −5.1 ± 13  0.98 −2.0 ± 9.2 0.99 −0.4 ± 5.5  0.93 0.4 ± 8.2 0.97
Poor (n = 72) −2.7 ± 41  0.89 −4.8 ± 32  0.89  0.3 ± 16 0.49 1.8 ± 26  0.81

Comparisons between the automated analysis and 3D-guided biplane measurements in the three image quality groups (n = 269).