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 5 Inter-observer variability

Variable	First	Second	Relative Difference (%)	P-Values	Bias	ICC
Variable	Observer	Observer	Relative Difference (%)	P-Values	Bias	ICC
4D-Auto-LVQ
EDV (ml)	32.4 ± 4.2	30.0 ± 4.8	7.80	0.0410	2.43	0.657
ESV (ml)	14.9 ± 2.4	13.5 ± 3.5	10.80	0.1274	1.43	0.562
SV (ml)	17.5 ± 2.1	16.5 ± 3.6	5.89	0.3485	0.98	0.414
EF (%)	54.0 ± 2.8	55.3 ± 7.9	2.40	0.5927	−1.31	0.243
TomTec
EDV (ml)	35.8 ± 3.6	31.8 ± 5.4	11.78	0.0126	3.98	0.453
ESV (ml)	18.0 ± 2.8	14.9 ± 5.52	19.14	0.0380	3.16	0.465
SV (ml)	17.7 ± 1.9	16.9 ± 4.2	4.77	0.5463	0.83	0.208
EF (%)	49.7 ± 4.33	53.4 ± 11.4	7.29	0.2627	−3.75	0.326

Results of statistical comparisons between repeated measurements by two observers of the different three-dimensional echocardiographic based volumetric analyzing software programs (4D-TomTec™, 4D-AutoLVQ™) used to calculate left ventricular end-diastolic (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV) and ejection fraction (EF) in 10 healthy anesthetized beagles. Bold letters illustrate significant differences (P < 0.05)

ISSN: 1746-6148