Left atrial volume measurement with automated border detection by 3-dimensional echocardiography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging
- 28k Downloads
Left atrial size is an important marker for adverse cardiovascular events. There is general consensus that left atrial volume index (LAVI) is the best measurement of size. The current LAVI measurement techniques are laborious. Semi-automated measurement with a 3-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) system may be a practical clinical alternative to measure LAVI, but it has not been adequately evaluated against Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) gold standard. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of a commercially available 3D algorithm for measurement of LAVI against LAVI obtained from MRI and Area Length Method (ALM).
In 27 consecutive subjects referred for cardiac MRI (age 54 ± 13 years, 63% male), LAVI was measured using 3 imaging modalities: 3DE, ALM, MRI and the results were correlated. ALM was measured using standard American Society of Echocardiography guidelines. The time required to measure LAVI by 3DE and ALM were compared.
There was a significant correlation in systolic and diastolic LA volumes and left atrial ejection fraction between 3DE and MRI (r = 0.86 for systole, r = 0.76 for diastole, r = 0.88 for ejection fraction, P < 0.0001 for all). There was also significant correlation of diastolic volumes between 3DE and ALM (r = 0.77, P < 0.0001). The time to obtain LAVI was shorter using 3DE versus ALM (56 ± 8 vs 135 ± 55 seconds, P < 0.0001).
Three-dimensional echocardiography with semiautomatic border detection is a practical alternative for obtaining the left atrial volume in a time-efficient manner compared to the current standard.
KeywordsLeft Atrium Left Atrial Left Atrial Volume Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measurement Left Atrial Enlargement
3 dimensional echocardiography
area length method
American Society of Echocardiography
Left atrial volume index
magnetic resonance imaging.
Left atrial (LA) size is an independent marker of adverse clinical outcomes in conditions such as atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction and heart failure [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Although measurement of a linear anterior-posterior LA dimension by M-mode or two-dimensional (2D) imaging has been the standard indicator of size for the past few decades, there is increasing recognition that enlargement occurs eccentrically which reduces the sensitivity of this measurement. Measurement of LA volume indexed to body surface area (BSA) is a more sensitive indicator of LA size. The Area Length Method (ALM) is currently recommended by the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) as the preferred 2D method of estimation . Previous studies using off-line 3-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the left atrium that were obtained by time-sequenced 2 dimensional images correlated well to the gold standard of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). But these methods were clinically impractical due to need for specialized software and prolonged time gap from image acquisition to volume calculation [8, 9]. With the recent development of 3D matrix array transducers that can rapidly acquire real-time 3D images and the simultaneous development of semi-automated computer algorithms that can measure left ventricular volume from these images without using geometric assumptions, we hypothesized that this algorithm could be applied to estimate left atrial volume index in a time-efficient manner. The aim of this study was to apply the commercially available 3D semi-automated volume algorithm to the measurement of left atrial volume index, and validate its accuracy against the MRI gold standard as well as the ASE recommended 2D based area-length method. We further sought to compare the inter- and intraobserver variability, as well as the measurement time between 3DE and standard 2D ALM method.
This study was approved by the Medical College of Wisconsin's Institutional Review Board. From April to December 2006, subjects who were referred for cardiac MRI for any indication were asked to participate in the study consecutively. Other inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older and willingness to provide informed consent. Exclusion criteria were presence of prosthetic valves, supraventricular or ventricular tachyarrhythmias at the time of image acquisition, known congenital heart disease and inability to complete cardiac MRI study due to claustrophobia. All consenting subjects were included and no subjects were excluded due to suboptimal image quality.
The time required to measure the LA volume by ALM and 3D techniques were compared. The 3D measurement time period included the interval from launching the 3D application, aligning the image for LA volume calculation in atrial diastole and then marking the 5 points until the border tracing algorithm was completed and then indexed manually to body surface area. Timing of the ALM began with area and length measurements, and included the time to enter the measured values and body surface area into the custom calculator. The measurements were performed independently by authors (RA and LH) who were blinded to MRI results.
Magnetic resonance imaging
Data are expressed as means ± standard deviation unless otherwise indicated. The relation between any 2 methods was determined using Pearson's correlation. The Bland-Altman method was used to measure the limits of agreement between 2 methods. The time required to measure the LA volume by ALM and 3DE was compared using the Mann-Whitney test. Intraobserver and interobserver variability was determined for 3DE, MRI and ALM using coefficient of variability, calculated as the mean of absolute differences between 2 measurements divided by the average of the 2 measurements times 100 expressed as a percentage. Using previously published MRI values for left atrial volume in normal subjects , each participant was categorized as having either enlarged (>1 standard deviation from published mean) or normal left atrial size (≤ 1 standard deviation from published mean) by MRI. A receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated to determine the sensitivity and specificity of LAVI for both 3DE and ALM to detect left atrial enlargement. Two sided p-value was set at 0.05 for significance. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 13.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago IL) and Sigmastat 3.5 (Systat Software Inc., Richmond CA).
Baseline characteristics of the included subjects
Number of subjects
(mean ± standard deviation)
54 ± 13
Indication for MRI (%)
Congestive heart failure
Coarctation of Aorta
Pulmonary artery stenosis
Patent ductus arteriosus
The intra- and interobserver variability among the different methods in percent
Semiautomated 3D Technique
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Area Length Method
In this study we compared for the first time the LA volume measured by a commercially available 3-dimensional echocardiography system that utilizes semiautomated border detection, to an MRI gold standard and demonstrated good correlation. This technique has furthermore proven to have favorable intraobserver and interobserver variability compared to MRI and ALM.
Measurement of LA volume by 3D echocardiography in adult patients has been attempted in the past by Keller and Rodevand in 2 separate studies [8, 9]. The correlation with an MRI gold standard was excellent. The image acquisition, however, was obtained on a standard 2D transducer, with 3D reconstruction occurring off-line by specialized software. The off-line image processing took 6–10 minutes for LA volume measurement, making this a clinically impractical approach. Jenkins and co-workers applied real-time 3D echocardiography for measurement of the LA volume in 106 subjects . The study compared different 2D methods of volume estimation to the 3D technique, but did not include an MRI gold standard. Furthermore, the study by Jenkins, et al  used a different software algorithm (4D analysis, Tomtec Gmbh, Unterschlessheim, Germany) for LA volume estimation, requiring almost 8 times longer processing time (430 ± 15 s vs 56 ± 8 s in the present study). Similar to the present study, they found significant correlation between the volumes obtained by the ALM and the 3D technique.
The accuracy of MRI measurement of left atrial volume has been validated against water displacement of cadaveric atrial casts by Järvinen and coworkers . Our findings show that echocardiography systematically underestimates the LA volumes as compared to MRI. This phenomenon has been described from previous comparisons of echocardiography versus MRI and gated cardiac computer tomography for assessment of left atrial and ventricular volumes [9, 14, 15]. A likely explanation is the difference in spatial image resolution between imaging techniques. In both 2D and 3D echocardiography, the apical window places the left atrium at the far field of the ultrasound beam, resulting in loss of lateral image resolution. In contrast to MRI, planimetry of 2D and 3D ultrasound images may not distinguish the volumes within the intratrabecular areas . As illustrated in figures 1 and 2, the greater image resolution of MRI permits more accurate border detection of the left atrium as compared to 3DE that might explain an average of 15–20 ml difference in volume observed between modalities in the present study and in the literature. The underestimation of atrial diastolic and systolic volumes by 3DE resulted in mild overestimation of atrial ejection fraction compared to MRI (Fig. 3). Left atrial ejection fraction has been associated with left ventricular systolic and diastolic function . Routine use of left atrial ejection fraction is currently not part of the daily clinical practice likely due to the additional time required to obtain this parameter. With 3DE, atrial volume data at multiple time points per cardiac cycle and LA function are automatically calculated by the software in a time interval that is comparable or shorter than conventional ALM. Larger studies are however required to correlate the atrial ejection fraction assessed by 3DE to systolic and diastolic dysfunction.
In this study we demonstrated that time to obtain LAVI was significantly shorter using 3DE even with manual correction as compared to ALM measurements when measured off-line. Measurements using both techniques were performed off-line to replicate best clinical-practice guidelines. Although many modern ultrasound systems permit on-line ALM calculation of LAVI, a critical shortcoming is the inability to adjust sonographers' left atrial area tracings by the interpreting physician off-line. In our multi-vendor clinical laboratory, we have overcome this limitation by performing all measurements off-line on images already transferred to the digital reporting system.
Our findings suggest that in laboratories equipped with 3D matrix-array transducers and an off-line quantification application, the 3DE is the most time-efficient method of LA volume quantification. This finding, along with good MRI correlation and reproducibility, implies this may be the preferred method of LAVI measurement except in cases when poor image quality prevents automated border detection. Given the prognostic implication of LA size, the ease of 3D derived volume and ejection fraction calculation will allow more routine acquisition of these parameters. In a busy echocardiography imaging laboratory the time saved by the sonographers and readers to calculate such parameters might have significant impact on the efficiency of the lab as well as better patient care.
This study was limited by a relatively small sample size. Although we did not have normal subjects, the use of subjects with suspected heart disease makes this study applicable to clinical practice. The study population was biased towards subjects who are undergoing MRI. All subjects had adequate echocardiography acoustic windows and no one was excluded due to poor echocardiographic image quality. Therefore, the study is not biased in terms of echocardiographic imaging quality limitation. The group studied more closely reflects the referral of a tertiary institution with a higher proportion of patients with advanced cardiac disease. The findings should be validated in a larger and more general population reflecting the continuum of left atrial size. In this study we used commercially available software that was originally designed for assessment of left ventricular volume and function and applied it to the measurement of LA volume which explains the ellipsoid shape of the left atrium illustrated in Figure 1B. In spite of these limitations, the correlation with MRI measurements was strong. These are the first steps in the application of this method for left atrial volume measurement. The data should motivate the development of software specifically designed for left atrial geometry that might improve the accuracy of this method.
Three dimensional echocardiography with semiautomatic border detection is a practical alternative for obtaining the left atrial volume in a time-efficient manner compared to the current ASE standard and has good correlation with MRI measurements.
- 3.Tsang TS, Barnes ME, Gersh BJ, Takemoto Y, Rosales AG, Bailey KR, Seward JB: Prediction of risk for first age-related cardiovascular events in an elderly population: the incremental value of echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003, 42: 1199-205. 10.1016/S0735-1097(03)00943-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Osranek M, Fatema K, Qaddoura F, Al-Saileek A, Barnes ME, Bailey KR, Gersh BJ, Tsang TS, Zehr KJ, Seward JB: Left atrial volume predicts the risk of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a prospective study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006, 48: 779-86. 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.03.054.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Modena MG, Muia N, Sgura FA, Molinari R, Castella A, Rossi R: Left atrial size is the major predictor of cardiac death and overall clinical outcome in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy: a long-term follow-up study. Clin Cardiol. 1997, 20: 553-60. 10.1002/clc.4960200609.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, Flachskampf FA, Foster E, Pellikka PA, Picard MH, Roman MJ, Seward J, Shanewise JS, Solomon SD, Spencer KT, Sutton MS, Stewart WJ: Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005, 18: 1440-63. 10.1016/j.echo.2005.10.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Murata M, Iwanaga S, Tamura Y, Kondo M, Kouyama K, Murata M, Ogawa S: A real-time three-dimensional echocardiographic quantitative analysis of left atrial function in left ventricular diastolic dysfunction. Am J Cardiol. 2008, 102: 1097-102. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.05.067.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.