Figures & data
Figure 1 Different parameter settings of HM 3DE to evaluate left ventricular function. Left: ED and ES = 40 and 20, right: ED and ES = 100 and 50. Arrows: different ED and ES settings to trace the endocardium of the LV.
![Figure 1 Different parameter settings of HM 3DE to evaluate left ventricular function. Left: ED and ES = 40 and 20, right: ED and ES = 100 and 50. Arrows: different ED and ES settings to trace the endocardium of the LV.](/cms/asset/88fc2933-5b3f-417e-81cb-7d80993abe73/dijg_a_12168481_f0001_c.jpg)
Figure 2 Conventional 3DE to evaluate left ventricular function. Left: 3D trace of the endocardium of the left ventricle, and right: 3D trace of the endocardium of the left atrium.
![Figure 2 Conventional 3DE to evaluate left ventricular function. Left: 3D trace of the endocardium of the left ventricle, and right: 3D trace of the endocardium of the left atrium.](/cms/asset/055241b9-d3d8-413b-aa72-ffed417225f6/dijg_a_12168481_f0002_c.jpg)
Table 1 Baseline Demographic Characteristics
Table 2 Comparison of HM Different Border Settings and 3D of Left Ventricular Systolic Function
Figure 3 Correlation analysis of different HM border settings and the conventional 3DE assessment of the left ventricular ejection fraction.
![Figure 3 Correlation analysis of different HM border settings and the conventional 3DE assessment of the left ventricular ejection fraction.](/cms/asset/a6159f72-c7cf-4290-92fc-7ababbdad8b5/dijg_a_12168481_f0003_c.jpg)
Figure 4 Up: Different parameter settings of HM to evaluate LVEF compared with conventional 3DE. Down: Different parameter settings of HM to evaluate EDV (mean) compared with conventional 3DE.
![Figure 4 Up: Different parameter settings of HM to evaluate LVEF compared with conventional 3DE. Down: Different parameter settings of HM to evaluate EDV (mean) compared with conventional 3DE.](/cms/asset/ef9dbe49-02c1-4b96-bd8d-b9cb7cf137a7/dijg_a_12168481_f0004_c.jpg)
Figure 5 Left: Comparison of the agreement of LVEF between different HM border settings and conventional 3DE. ED and ES = 70 and 30 was much better than ED and ES = 74 and 68. Right: Comparison of the agreement of EDV between different HM border settings and conventional 3DE. ED and ES = 40 and 20 was much better than ED and ES = 100 and 50.
![Figure 5 Left: Comparison of the agreement of LVEF between different HM border settings and conventional 3DE. ED and ES = 70 and 30 was much better than ED and ES = 74 and 68. Right: Comparison of the agreement of EDV between different HM border settings and conventional 3DE. ED and ES = 40 and 20 was much better than ED and ES = 100 and 50.](/cms/asset/8bd54652-6d7b-43dd-8765-8fac7dd5cc13/dijg_a_12168481_f0005_c.jpg)
Figure 6 Agreement analysis of different HM border settings and conventional 3DE assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction.
![Figure 6 Agreement analysis of different HM border settings and conventional 3DE assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction.](/cms/asset/02b5a1db-5c89-4e8c-a9aa-ddcaef8fb8e1/dijg_a_12168481_f0006_c.jpg)
Table 3 Comparison of HM and 3D of LAVmax
Table 4 Reproducibility (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, ICC)
Table 5 Comparison of HM and 3D Assessment of Time