Objectives: To compare the accuracy of simplified 3-dimensional (3-D) echocardiography vs. multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) software for the quantification of left ventricular (LV) volumes. Design: Three-D echocardiography (3-planes approach) and MSCT-CardIQ software were calibrated by measuring known volumes of 10 phantoms designed to closely mimic blood-endocardium interface. Subsequently, LV volumes were measured with both the methods in 9 patients referred routinely for coronary angiography and the agreement between the measurements was evaluated. Results: Simplified 3D-echocardiography provided higher degree of agreement between the measured and true phantom volumes (mean difference 0 +/- 1 ml, variation range + 4 to -4 ml) than MSCT software (mean difference 6 +/- 5 ml; variation range + 22 to -10 ml). The agreement between LV measurements in the patients was considerably poorer, with significantly larger volumes produced by MSCT (mean difference - 23 +/- 40 ml, variation between + 93 and -138 ml). Conclusion: Simplified 3-D echocardiography provides more accurate assessment of phantom volumes than MSCT-CardIQ software. The discrepancy between the results of LV measurements with the two methods is even greater and does not warrant their interchangeable diagnostic use.

The objective was to evaluate the function of ultrasound transducers in use in routine clinical practice and thereby estimating the incidence of defective transducers. The study comprised a one-time test of 676 transducers from 7 manufacturers which were in daily use in clinical departments at 32 hospitals. They were tested with the Sonora FirstCall Test System; 39.8% exhibited a transducer error. Delamination was detected in 26.5% and break in the cable was detected in 8.4% of the tested transducers. Errors originating from the piezoelectrical elements were unusual. Delamination and short circuit occurred without significant differences between transducers from all tested manufacturers, but the errors break in the cable, weak and dead element showed a statistically significant higher frequency in transducers from certain manufacturers. The high error frequency and the risk for incorrect medical decisions when using a defective transducer indicate an urgent need for increased testing of the transducers in clinical departments.

The objective was to follow-up the study 'High incidence of defective ultrasound transducers in use in routine clinical practice' and evaluate if annual testing is good enough to reduce the incidence of defective ultrasound transducers in routine clinical practice to an acceptable level. A total of 299 transducers were tested in 13 clinics at five hospitals in the Stockholm area. Approximately 7000-15 000 ultrasound examinations are carried out at these clinics every year. The transducers tested in the study had been tested and classified as fully operational 1 year before and since then been in normal use in the routine clinical practice. The transducers were tested with the Sonora FirstCall Test System. There were 81 (27.1%) defective transducers found; giving a 95% confidence interval ranging from 22.1 to 32.1%. The most common transducer errors were 'delamination' of the ultrasound lens and 'break in the cable' which together constituted 82.7% of all transducer errors found. The highest error rate was found at the radiological clinics with a mean error rate of 36.0%. There was a significant difference in error rate between two observed ways the clinics handled the transducers. There was no significant difference in the error rates of the transducer brands or the transducers models. Annual testing is not sufficient to reduce the incidence of defective ultrasound transducers in routine clinical practice to an acceptable level and it is strongly advisable to create a user routine that minimizes the handling of the transducers.

AIMS: The objective of this study was to test the accuracy and diagnostic interchangeability of tissue Doppler-based displacement, velocity, strain, and strain rate measurements in commercially used ultrasound (US) systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using an in-house made phantom, four different US scanner models were evaluated. Two different scanners of the same model were tested, and one scanner acquisition was tested twice with two generations of the same workstation giving six test results in total. The scanners were in active clinical use and are subject to regular maintenance checks. There were three displacement and four velocity results that stood out from the rest and could be regarded as accurate and interchangeable. Among the deformation measurements, three acceptable strain results were found while there were no acceptable strain rate results. Furthermore, the study showed that measurements from scanners of the same model, same acquisition post-processed on different workstations and repeated measurements from the same scanner, can yield disparate results. CONCLUSION: Measurements that are accurate and of interchangeable use can be found for displacement and velocity measurements, but are less likely to be found for strain and strain rate measurements. It is strongly recommended that the ability of each individual US scanner to measure displacement, velocity, strain, and strain rate is evaluated before it is introduced into clinical practice, and it must always be evaluated together with the workstation the scanner is intended to be used in conjunction with.