Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional fusion echocardiography (3DFE) is a novel postprocessing approach that utilizes imaging data acquired from multiple 3D acquisitions. We assessed image quality, endocardial border definition, and cardiac wall motion in patients using 3DFE compared to standard 3D images (3D) and results obtained with contrast echocardiography (2DC). METHODS: Twenty-four patients (mean age 66.9 ± 13 years, 17 males, 7 females) undergoing 2DC had three, noncontrast, 3D apical volumes acquired at rest. Images were fused using an automated image fusion approach. Quality of the 3DFE was compared to both 3D and 2DC based on contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and endocardial border definition. We then compared clinical wall-motion score index (WMSI) calculated from 3DFE and 3D to those obtained from 2DC images. RESULTS: Fused 3D volumes had significantly improved CNR (8.92 ± 1.35 vs. 6.59 ± 1.19, P < 0.0005) and segmental image quality (2.42 ± 0.99 vs. 1.93 ± 1.18, P < 0.005) compared to unfused 3D acquisitions. Levels achieved were closer to scores for 2D contrast images (CNR: 9.04 ± 2.21, P = 0.6; segmental image quality: 2.91 ± 0.37, P < 0.005). WMSI calculated from fused 3D volumes did not differ significantly from those obtained from 2D contrast echocardiography (1.06 ± 0.09 vs. 1.07 ± 0.15, P = 0.69), whereas unfused images produced significantly more variable results (1.19 ± 0.30). This was confirmed by a better intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 0.72; 95% CI 0.32-0.88) relative to comparisons with unfused images (ICC 0.56; 95% CI 0.02-0.81). CONCLUSION: 3DFE significantly improves left ventricular image quality compared to unfused 3D in a patient population and allows noncontrast assessment of wall motion that approaches that achieved with 2D contrast echocardiography.

Original publication




Conference paper

Publication Date





302 - 309


3D, contrast, echocardiography, image fusion, Aged, Contrast Media, Echocardiography, Echocardiography, Three-Dimensional, Female, Heart Ventricles, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Observer Variation, Phospholipids, Reproducibility of Results, Sulfur Hexafluoride, Ventricular Dysfunction, Left