Table 1: Comparisons Among Fully Automated 3D Methods and Either Cardiac Magnetic Resonance or Manual Echocardiography.
| Authors | Reference | Software | n | Feasibility | LVEDV bias (ml) | LVESV bias (ml) | LVEF bias (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thavendiranathan, et al., 2012[15] (I) | CMR | eSie LVATM (Siemans Healthcare) | 101 | 66 % | -18 ± 54 | -10 ± 36 | -0 ± 6 |
| Thavendiranathan, et al., 2012[15] (II)* | 2D Simpson | eSie LVA | 27 | 89 % | 2 ± 16 | 4 ± 13 | -2 ± 4 |
| Ren, et al., 2014[19] | Manual 3D | eSie LVA | 48 | 85 % | -3 ± 23 | -2 ± 14 | -0 ± 9 |
| Otani, et al., 2016[31],* | 2D Simpson | HeartModel (Philips Healthcare) | 10 | 100 % | -3 ± 26 | -1 ± 17 | -0 ± 10 |
| Tsang, et al., 2016[30] (I) | CMR | HeartModel | 69 | 94 % | 2 ± 40 | 10 ± 40 | -6 ± 16 |
| Tsang, et al., 2016[30] (II) | Manual 3D | HeartModel | 104 | 90 % | -24 ± 50 | -13 ± 58 | -2 ± 18 |
| Spitzer, et al., 2017[32] | Manual 3D | HeartModel | 72 | 93 % | -6 ± 39 | -2 ± 39 | -1 ± 15 |
| Levy, et al., 2017[33] | CMR | HeartModel | 63 | 86 % | -22 ± 34 | -13 ± 33 | -1 ± 7 |
| Medvedofsky, et al., 2017[34],† | Manual 3D | HeartModel | 180 | 100 % | -14 ± 20 | -6 ± 16 | -2 ± 7 |
| Medvedofsky, et al., 2017[34],†,‡ | Manual 3D | HeartModel | 300 | 66 % | -3 ± 22 | 1 ± 16 | 0 ± 10 |
*Atrial fibrillation; †Including patients with arrhythmias; ‡Consecutive patients. I and II describe two reference modalities used in a single report. CMR = cardiac magnetic resonance; LVA = left ventricle analysis; LVEDV = left ventricle end-diastolic volume; LVEF = left ventricle ejection fraction; LVESV = left ventricle end-systolic volume.