Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
