TY - JOUR
T1 - Anatomic m-mode, a pertinent tool for the daily practice of transthoracic echocardiography
AU - Donal, Erwan
AU - Coisne, Damien
AU - Pham, Ban
AU - Ragot, Stephanie
AU - Herpin, Daniel
AU - Thomas, James D.
N1 - Funding Information:
Supported in part by Grant NCC 9-58, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Houston, Texas (Dr Thomas); and a grant from the French Federation of Cardiology (Dr Donal).
Copyright:
Copyright 2009 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2004/9
Y1 - 2004/9
N2 - Objectives We sought to compare anatomic M-mode (AMM), a new echocardiographic postprocessing option, and conventional M-mode (CMM) using fundamental imaging and tissue harmonic imaging. Methods Transthoracic echocardiography was performed in 15 selected patients to analyze the reproducibility of AMM and in 47 patients to assess its clinical value versus CMM. Acquisitions were performed successively: CMM fundamental imaging; CMM tissue harmonic imaging; tissue harmonic imaging cineloops for AMM; and fundamental imaging cineloops for AMM. Quantitative analysis was performed offline. The angle α between the CMM line and the septal endocardial interface was calculated and the expected percentage of error in measuring left ventricular diameter was derived. Results AMM analysis was reproducible. Optimal AMM full echocardiographic definition was obtainable in 77% of the population, whereas CMM was optimal for 49% because of scan line misalignment, causing a measurement overestimation exceeding 5%. Conclusion The ability with AMM to reduce the α angle to 0 degrees and, thus, avoid overestimation of left ventricular dimensions might improve follow-up in several pathologic conditions.
AB - Objectives We sought to compare anatomic M-mode (AMM), a new echocardiographic postprocessing option, and conventional M-mode (CMM) using fundamental imaging and tissue harmonic imaging. Methods Transthoracic echocardiography was performed in 15 selected patients to analyze the reproducibility of AMM and in 47 patients to assess its clinical value versus CMM. Acquisitions were performed successively: CMM fundamental imaging; CMM tissue harmonic imaging; tissue harmonic imaging cineloops for AMM; and fundamental imaging cineloops for AMM. Quantitative analysis was performed offline. The angle α between the CMM line and the septal endocardial interface was calculated and the expected percentage of error in measuring left ventricular diameter was derived. Results AMM analysis was reproducible. Optimal AMM full echocardiographic definition was obtainable in 77% of the population, whereas CMM was optimal for 49% because of scan line misalignment, causing a measurement overestimation exceeding 5%. Conclusion The ability with AMM to reduce the α angle to 0 degrees and, thus, avoid overestimation of left ventricular dimensions might improve follow-up in several pathologic conditions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4444271805&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4444271805&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.echo.2004.05.009
DO - 10.1016/j.echo.2004.05.009
M3 - Article
C2 - 15337961
AN - SCOPUS:4444271805
SN - 0894-7317
VL - 17
SP - 962
EP - 967
JO - Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography
JF - Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography
IS - 9
ER -