Three‐dimensional (3D) echocardiography is the most accurate echocardiographic method for ventricular chamber quantification. It is unclear how two‐dimensional (2D) techniques perform against 3D technology and whether 2D methods can be extrapolated to obtain 3D data.

Results

One‐hundred patients were identified. Using 3D echocardiography as reference standard, good correlation was noted with 2D strain‐derived EF (r = 0.89, P < 0.01) and with 2D standard biplane EF (r = 0.90, P < 0.01) and similarly for EDV (r = 0.84 and r = 0.81, respectively, both P < 0.01). Two‐dimensional strain‐derived EDV by 8% and 2D biplane‐derived EDV underestimated by 8% (P < 0.01). In relation to 3D EF, 2D strain underestimated by 2% and 2D standard biplane overestimated by 2% (P < 0.01). There was a negative correlation between GLS and 3D EF (r = 0.84, P = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, 3D EF could be derived from 2D strain [3D EF = 34.345 + (0.125 * EDV) + (−0.289 * ESV) + (−1.141 * GLS)]. Three‐dimensional echocardiography‐derived synchrony parameter (ie, standard deviation from mean time to minimum systolic volume from 16 subvolumes) did not correlate with 2D strain‐derived synchrony index (r = 0.171).