OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to quantify left ventricular function and mass derived from retrospectively ECG-gated 16-MDCT coronary angiography data sets using a new analysis software based on automatic contour detection in comparison to corresponding standard of reference measurements acquired with MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Multiplanar reformations in the short-axis orientation were calculated from axial contrast-enhanced CT images in 18 patients (men, 15; women, three; age range, 38-70 years; mean, 57.4 +/- 10.2 [SD] years) who were referred for CT coronary angiography. End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), ejection fraction (EF), and left ventricular mass (LVM) were analyzed with a recently developed imaging software using an automated contour detection algorithm of left ventricular endo- and epicardial contours and by manual tracing. The data were compared with similar measurements on MRI as the standard of reference. RESULTS: EDV, ESV, EF, and LVM derived from an automated contour detection algorithm were not statistically significantly different from manual tracing (CT(auto) vs CT(manual): EDV = 137.1 +/- 45.7 mL vs 134.2 +/- 39.9 mL, ESV = 58.8 +/- 34.2 mL vs 58.1 +/-30.1 mL, EF = 59.2% +/- 13.7% vs 58.1% +/- 12.0%, LVM = 130.9 +/- 29.1 g vs 133.7 +/- 33.2 g; p > 0.05). However, EDV (118.7 +/- 43.6 mL), ESV (50.1 +/- 33.5 mL), and LVM (142.8 +/-38.4 g) as calculated on MR data sets were statistically significantly different from those calculated on CT (p < 0.05), whereas MRI-based EF (59.9% +/- 14.4%) did not differ statistically significantly from those based on both CT algorithms (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Automatic and manual analysis of data acquired during CT coronary angiography using a 16-MDCT scanner allows a reliable assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction and a rough estimation of left ventricular volumes and mass.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to quantify left ventricular function and mass derived from retrospectively ECG-gated 16-MDCT coronary angiography data sets using a new analysis software based on automatic contour detection in comparison to corresponding standard of reference measurements acquired with MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Multiplanar reformations in the short-axis orientation were calculated from axial contrast-enhanced CT images in 18 patients (men, 15; women, three; age range, 38-70 years; mean, 57.4 +/- 10.2 [SD] years) who were referred for CT coronary angiography. End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), ejection fraction (EF), and left ventricular mass (LVM) were analyzed with a recently developed imaging software using an automated contour detection algorithm of left ventricular endo- and epicardial contours and by manual tracing. The data were compared with similar measurements on MRI as the standard of reference. RESULTS: EDV, ESV, EF, and LVM derived from an automated contour detection algorithm were not statistically significantly different from manual tracing (CT(auto) vs CT(manual): EDV = 137.1 +/- 45.7 mL vs 134.2 +/- 39.9 mL, ESV = 58.8 +/- 34.2 mL vs 58.1 +/-30.1 mL, EF = 59.2% +/- 13.7% vs 58.1% +/- 12.0%, LVM = 130.9 +/- 29.1 g vs 133.7 +/- 33.2 g; p > 0.05). However, EDV (118.7 +/- 43.6 mL), ESV (50.1 +/- 33.5 mL), and LVM (142.8 +/-38.4 g) as calculated on MR data sets were statistically significantly different from those calculated on CT (p < 0.05), whereas MRI-based EF (59.9% +/- 14.4%) did not differ statistically significantly from those based on both CT algorithms (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Automatic and manual analysis of data acquired during CT coronary angiography using a 16-MDCT scanner allows a reliable assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction and a rough estimation of left ventricular volumes and mass.
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
Authors: Carsten Rist; T R Johnson; A Becker; A W Leber; A Huber; S Busch; C R Becker; M F Reiser; K Nikolaou Journal: Radiologe Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 0.635