Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fetal and neonatal studies report a wide range of cardiac parameters derived by pulsed-wave Doppler tissue imaging (DTI) and two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiographic (STE) imaging. The use of different ultrasound systems and their vendor-specific software compromises the ability to compare echocardiographic findings among various studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate intervendor reproducibility as well as intra- and interobserver repeatability of DTI and STE measurements in normal-term fetuses and neonates. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted of term fetuses (n = 196) from uncomplicated pregnancies assessed days before the onset of labor and a few hours after birth. Fetal and neonatal DTI and STE parameters were obtained and analyzed using vendor-specific software on three ultrasound systems: Toshiba Aplio MX versus GE Vivid E9 and GE Vivid E9 versus Philips EPIQ. A reproducibility study in fetuses and neonates (n = 118) was performed by systematic scanning with head-to-head comparison. RESULTS: DTI reproducibility showed moderate to good correlation, with good agreement for fetuses and neonates on Toshiba versus GE (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.4-0.8). Correlation of DTI measurements on GE versus Philips was poor to moderate for fetuses (ICC = 0.1-0.6) and moderate to good for neonates (ICC = 0.5-0.8), with wider limits of agreement. Fetal and neonatal STE parameters revealed very poor correlation (ICC = 0.1-0.3) and agreement among ultrasound vendors. Intra- and interobserver repeatability demonstrated good to excellent correlation of all fetal and neonatal DTI and STE measurements, with good agreement irrespective of the ultrasound platform used. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate reliable assessment of fetal and neonatal DTI and STE measurements when performed on the same ultrasound platform, whereas ultrasound machines and software from different vendors give significantly divergent estimates of DTI and STE parameters in fetuses and neonates. These intervendor discrepancies have significant clinical and research implications and should be considered when interpreting and comparing study findings, establishing reference standards, or performing systematic reviews.