OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to validate the feasibility of the synergistic use of cardiac MR and CT data sets for ventricular motility analysis and to correlate measurement variability with underlying heart rate. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty patients underwent concurrent ECG-gated MDCT and MRI for evaluation of ventricular motility, expressed as ventricular wall thickening and motion. Initially, individual measurement repetition series were analyzed by determining intraobserver variability and detecting intraobserver bias related to heart rates. Subsequently, absolute measurement differences of CT or MR data were statistically evaluated. Finally, absolute measurement differences were correlated with underlying heart rates by curve estimation regression. RESULTS: Analysis of measurement reproducibility proved that data variability was dependent on only the anatomic localization of the analyzed ventricular segment, not on the imaging technique used or underlying heart rate, in normofrequent patients. Comparing MR and CT image data sets, no statistically significant differences were identified when ventricular motility was evaluated based on data sets of either imaging technique in normofrequent patients. Tachycardic frequencies, above 100 beats per minute, led to exponential error propagation due to insufficient temporal resolution of the current CT technology. CONCLUSION: This study proved that cardiac motility assessment based on ECG-gated CT and MR data sets resulted in comparable ventricular function results for normofrequent patients; however, the high spatial resolution of cardiac MDCT cannot compensate for the lack of temporal resolution in patients with tachycardia, thus emphasizing the necessity of reporting ventricular motility analysis results in combination with heart rate to allow consideration of this possible cause for measurement variation.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to validate the feasibility of the synergistic use of cardiac MR and CT data sets for ventricular motility analysis and to correlate measurement variability with underlying heart rate. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty patients underwent concurrent ECG-gated MDCT and MRI for evaluation of ventricular motility, expressed as ventricular wall thickening and motion. Initially, individual measurement repetition series were analyzed by determining intraobserver variability and detecting intraobserver bias related to heart rates. Subsequently, absolute measurement differences of CT or MR data were statistically evaluated. Finally, absolute measurement differences were correlated with underlying heart rates by curve estimation regression. RESULTS: Analysis of measurement reproducibility proved that data variability was dependent on only the anatomic localization of the analyzed ventricular segment, not on the imaging technique used or underlying heart rate, in normofrequent patients. Comparing MR and CT image data sets, no statistically significant differences were identified when ventricular motility was evaluated based on data sets of either imaging technique in normofrequent patients. Tachycardic frequencies, above 100 beats per minute, led to exponential error propagation due to insufficient temporal resolution of the current CT technology. CONCLUSION: This study proved that cardiac motility assessment based on ECG-gated CT and MR data sets resulted in comparable ventricular function results for normofrequent patients; however, the high spatial resolution of cardiac MDCT cannot compensate for the lack of temporal resolution in patients with tachycardia, thus emphasizing the necessity of reporting ventricular motility analysis results in combination with heart rate to allow consideration of this possible cause for measurement variation.