Literature DB >> 12148745

Vessel size measurements in angiograms: a comparison of techniques.

Kenneth R Hoffmann1, Daryl P Nazareth, László Miskolczi, Anant Gopal, Zhou Wang, Stephen Rudin, Daniel R Bednarek.   

Abstract

As interventional procedures become more complicated, the need for accurate quantitative vascular information increases. In response to this need, many commercial vendors provide techniques for measurement of vessel sizes, usually based on derivative techniques. In this study, we investigate the accuracy of several techniques used in the measurement of vessel size. Simulated images of vessels having circular cross sections were generated and convolved with various focal spot distributions taking into account the magnification. These vessel images were then convolved with Gaussian image detector line spread functions (LSFs). Additionally, images of a phantom containing vessels with a range of diameters were acquired for the 4.5", 6", 9", and 12" modes of an image intensifier-TV (II-TV) system. Vessel sizes in the images were determined using a first-derivative technique, a second-derivative technique, a linear combination of these two measured sizes, a thresholding technique, a densitometric technique, and a model-based technique. For the same focal spot size, the shape of the focal spot distribution does not affect measured vessel sizes except at large magnifications. For vessels with diameters larger than the full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) of the LSF, accurate vessel sizes (errors approximately 0.1 mm) could be obtained by using an average of sizes determined by the first and second derivatives. For vessels with diameters smaller than the FWHM of the LSF, the densitometric and model-based techniques can provide accurate vessel sizes when these techniques are properly calibrated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12148745     DOI: 10.1118/1.1488603

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  10 in total

1.  Accuracy of microvascular measurements obtained from micro-CT images.

Authors:  Timothy L Kline; Mair Zamir; Erik L Ritman
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 3.934

2.  New automated Markov-Gibbs random field based framework for myocardial wall viability quantification on agent enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Ahmed Elnakib; Garth M Beache; Georgy Gimel'farb; Ayman El-Baz
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-12-09       Impact factor: 2.357

3.  Clinical evaluation of angiographic multiple-view 3D reconstruction.

Authors:  Peter B Noël; Kenneth R Hoffmann; Snehal Kasodekar; Alan M Walczak; Sebastian Schafer; Jacek Dmochowski
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2009-06-04       Impact factor: 2.924

4.  New microangiography system development providing improved small vessel imaging, increased contrast to noise ratios, and multi-view 3D reconstructions.

Authors:  Andrew T Kuhls; Vikas Patel; Ciprian Ionita; Peter B Noël; Alan M Walczak; Hussain S Rangwala; Kenneth R Hoffmann; Stephen Rudin
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2006

5.  CT brain perfusion protocol to eliminate the need for selecting a venous output function.

Authors:  A J Riordan; E Bennink; M A Viergever; B K Velthuis; J W Dankbaar; H W A M de Jong
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 3.825

6.  Quantitative blood flow measurements in the small animal cardiopulmonary system using digital subtraction angiography.

Authors:  MingDe Lin; Craig T Marshall; Yi Qi; Samuel M Johnston; Cristian T Badea; Claude A Piantadosi; G Allan Johnson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Limited view CT reconstruction and segmentation via constrained metric labeling.

Authors:  Vikas Singh; Lopamudra Mukherjee; Petru M Dinu; Jinhui Xu; Kenneth R Hoffmann
Journal:  Comput Vis Image Underst       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 3.876

8.  IVUS validation of patient coronary artery lumen area obtained from CT images.

Authors:  Tong Luo; Thomas Wischgoll; Bon Kwon Koo; Yunlong Huo; Ghassan S Kassab
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Comparison of partial volume effects in arterial and venous contrast curves in CT brain perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Alan J Riordan; Edwin Bennink; Jan Willem Dankbaar; Max A Viergever; Birgitta K Velthuis; Ewoud J Smit; Hugo W A M de Jong
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-23       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging.

Authors:  Krishna S Nayak; Jon-Fredrik Nielsen; Matt A Bernstein; Michael Markl; Peter D Gatehouse; Rene M Botnar; David Saloner; Christine Lorenz; Han Wen; Bob S Hu; Frederick H Epstein; John N Oshinski; Subha V Raman
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2015-08-09       Impact factor: 5.364

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.