The aim of this study was to assess day-to-day variability of left ventricular (LV) volume and ejection fraction (EF) calculated from 3- dimensional echocardiography (3-DE) and to compare the reproducibility of the measurement with magnetic resonance imaging. Forty-six subjects were examined including 15 normal volunteers (group A) and 31 patients with LV dysfunction (group B). Precordial 3-DE acquisition was performed at 2°rotational intervals and repeated 1 week later. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 0.5 T. End-diastolic and end-systolic LV volumes were derived using Simpson's rule by manual endocardial tracing of 8 equidistant parallel LV short-axis slices with 3-DE, whereas 9-mm slices were used with magnetic resonance imaging. The mean ± SD of end-diastolic and end-systolic LV volumes (ml) and EF (%) from magnetic resonance imaging were 182 ± 75, 121 ± 76, and 39 ± 18, whereas those from 3-DE were 182 ± 76, 121 ± 77, and 39 ± 18 respectively. Day-to-day measurements of end-diastolic and end- systolic LV volumes, and EF on 3-DE were not significantly different as assessed with SEE (2.7, 1.1, and 2.4, respectively). Intra- and interobserver SEE for calculating end-diastolic and end-systolic LV volumes and EF for magnetic resonance imaging were 6.3, 4.7, and 2.1 and 13.6, 11.5, and 4.7, respectively, whereas those for 3-DE were 3.1, 4.4, and 2.2 and 6.2, 3.8, and 3.6, respectively. Day-to-day variability of LV volume and EF calculation on 3-DE were small and not significantly different for normal and dysfunctional left ventricles. Observer variabilities of 3-DE were fewer than those of magnetic resonance imaging. Therefore, 3-DE is recommended for serial assessment of LV volume and EF in normal and abnormally shaped ventricles.,
The American Journal of Cardiology
Department of Cardiology

Nosir, Y., Lequin, M., Kasprzak, J., van Domburg, R., Vletter, W., Yao, J., … Roelandt, J. (1998). Measurements and day-to-day variabilities of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by three-dimensional echocardiography and comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. The American Journal of Cardiology, 82(2), 209–214. doi:10.1016/S0002-9149(98)00306-3