Quantification of left ventricular volumes and function in anesthetized beagles using real-time three-dimensional echocardiography: 4D-TomTec™ analysis versus 4D-AutLVQ™ analysis in comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

Table 4 Statistical analysis of 4D-AutoLVQ™ without manual correction

	EF					EDV					ESV					SV
	Correlation		Bland Altman		GC	Correlation		Bland Altman		GC	Correlation		Bland Altman		GC	Correlation		Bland Altman		GC
	r	P value	Bias	SD	P-value	r	P-value	Bias	SD	P-value	r	P-value	Bias	SD	P-value	r	P-value	Bias	SD	P-value
Methods compared
CMRI vs	0,15	0,6831	−9,48	7,55	0,0032	0,58	0,3346	11,91	6,18	0,0002	0,48	0,2268	8,48	3,74	<0,0001	0,08	0,0057	3,43	3,88	0,0210
4D-AutLVQ™ without manual correction	0,15	0,6831	−9,48	7,55	0,0032	0,58	0,3346	11,91	6,18	0,0002	0,48	0,2268	8,48	3,74	<0,0001	0,08	0,0057	3,43	3,88	0,0210
4D-AutLVQ™ with manual correction vs	0,46	0,2070	−2,70	6,05	0,1915	0,74	0,5435	7,17	5,11	0,0016	0,70	0.4923	3,73	2,99	0,0033	0,64	0,4149	3,44	2,94	0,0049
4D-AutLVQ™ without manual correction	0,46	0,2070	−2,70	6,05	0,1915	0,74	0,5435	7,17	5,11	0,0016	0,70	0.4923	3,73	2,99	0,0033	0,64	0,4149	3,44	2,94	0,0049
4D-TomTec™ vs	0,28	0,4335	−7,02	6,96	0,0110	0,63	0,4028	10,52	5,76	0,0003	0,69	0,4815	6,84	2,98	<0,0001	0,19	0,0351	3,68	3,92	0,0049
4D-AutLVQ™ without manual correction	0,28	0,4335	−7,02	6,96	0,0110	0,63	0,4028	10,52	5,76	0,0003	0,69	0,4815	6,84	2,98	<0,0001	0,19	0,0351	3,68	3,92	0,0049

Results of statistical comparisons between cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI), 4D-TomTec™, 4D-AutoLVQ™ with manual correction and 4D-AutoLVQ™ without manual optimization of the values left ventricular end-diastolic (EDV) end-systolic (ESV) volume, stroke volume (SV) and ejection fraction (EF) in 10 healthy anesthetized beagles (GC Group comparison with paired T-Test, SD Standard Deviation, r Pearson regression coefficient). Bold letters illustrate significant differences (P < 0.05)

ISSN: 1746-6148