PURPOSE: To evaluate the time-effectiveness, inter-observer variance, and accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) measurements using retrospectively ECG-gated four-channel multi-detector row CT (MDCT) angiography in comparison with biplane cine-ventriculography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients underwent retrospectively ECG-gated MDCT angiography and conventional coronary angiography with biplane ventriculography. Raw MDCT data were reconstructed at 0 % - 90 % of the cardiac cycle in increments of 10 %. Ten geometrically identical multiplanar reformations parallel to the short axis of the heart were reconstructed in each patient. Three blinded readers segmented the left ventricle in the end-systolic and end-diastolic phase using standardized window settings in order to determine the EF. The EF was measured with biplane cine-ventriculography by two blinded readers and was compared with MDCT. The time needed for post-processing was recorded and the inter-observer agreement for both imaging techniques was assessed. RESULTS: Mean post-processing time was 63 +/- 3 min per patient for MDCT and 5.5 +/- 1.2 min for ventriculography. MDCT and ventriculography showed a good correlation (r = 0.83, p < 0.0001) for measurement of the EF. Mean errors of EF measurements for the three MDCT readers compared with the mean of the ventriculography were - 6.3 +/- 6.6 %, - 4.7 +/- 7.1 % and - 4.6 +/- 5.7 %, respectively. The mean differences between the three readers assessing MDCT were - 1.6 +/- 3.2 % (reader 1 versus 2, r = 0.96), - 1.6 +/- 5.6 % (1 versus 3, r = 0.95) and - 0.011 +/- 2.9 % (2 versus 3, r = 0.97, p < 0.0001). The mean differences between the two readers assessing ventriculography was 0.32 +/- 5.1 % (r = 0.88, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: MDCT correlates well with biplane cine-ventriculography but has the tendency to underestimate the left ventricular EF. Measurements using MDCT have a high inter-observer agreement, however, the time needed for additional MDCT data post-processing is still unacceptably long.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the time-effectiveness, inter-observer variance, and accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) measurements using retrospectively ECG-gated four-channel multi-detector row CT (MDCT) angiography in comparison with biplane cine-ventriculography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients underwent retrospectively ECG-gated MDCT angiography and conventional coronary angiography with biplane ventriculography. Raw MDCT data were reconstructed at 0 % - 90 % of the cardiac cycle in increments of 10 %. Ten geometrically identical multiplanar reformations parallel to the short axis of the heart were reconstructed in each patient. Three blinded readers segmented the left ventricle in the end-systolic and end-diastolic phase using standardized window settings in order to determine the EF. The EF was measured with biplane cine-ventriculography by two blinded readers and was compared with MDCT. The time needed for post-processing was recorded and the inter-observer agreement for both imaging techniques was assessed. RESULTS: Mean post-processing time was 63 +/- 3 min per patient for MDCT and 5.5 +/- 1.2 min for ventriculography. MDCT and ventriculography showed a good correlation (r = 0.83, p < 0.0001) for measurement of the EF. Mean errors of EF measurements for the three MDCT readers compared with the mean of the ventriculography were - 6.3 +/- 6.6 %, - 4.7 +/- 7.1 % and - 4.6 +/- 5.7 %, respectively. The mean differences between the three readers assessing MDCT were - 1.6 +/- 3.2 % (reader 1 versus 2, r = 0.96), - 1.6 +/- 5.6 % (1 versus 3, r = 0.95) and - 0.011 +/- 2.9 % (2 versus 3, r = 0.97, p < 0.0001). The mean differences between the two readers assessing ventriculography was 0.32 +/- 5.1 % (r = 0.88, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: MDCT correlates well with biplane cine-ventriculography but has the tendency to underestimate the left ventricular EF. Measurements using MDCT have a high inter-observer agreement, however, the time needed for additional MDCT data post-processing is still unacceptably long.
Authors: Martin Heuschmid; Julia K Rothfuss; Stephen Schroeder; Michael Fenchel; Norbert Stauder; Christof Burgstahler; Andreas Franow; Ronald S Kuzo; Axel Kuettner; Stephan Miller; Claus D Claussen; Andreas F Kopp Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-10-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Georg Mühlenbruch; Marco Das; Christian Hohl; Joachim E Wildberger; Daniel Rinck; Thomas G Flohr; Ralf Koos; Christian Knackstedt; Rolf W Günther; Andreas H Mahnken Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-12-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andreas H Mahnken; Georg Mühlenbruch; Ralf Koos; Sven Stanzel; Petra Simone Busch; Mathias Niethammer; Rolf W Günther; Joachim E Wildberger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-04-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Roman Fischbach; Kai Uwe Juergens; Murat Ozgun; David Maintz; Matthias Grude; Harald Seifarth; Walter Heindel; Thomas Wichter Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-09-29 Impact factor: 5.315