OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare cardiac ventricular measurements from non-gated CT and end-diastolic ECG-gated CT in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: With institutional review board approval, 30 adult patients (16 female, mean age = 56 years, range = 26-77 years) underwent ECG-gated cardiac CT within 36 h of their CT diagnosis of acute PE to assess the right ventricle (RV). The axial and reformatted four-chamber ventricular diameters, areas and volumes were measured for both the non-gated CT and the ECG-gated CT in end-diastole and end-systole. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (RCC) was calculated to compare measurements from the non-gated CT to the gated end-diastolic measurements. The median absolute differences between the gated and non-gated measurements relative to the gated measurements were provided to summarize the degree to which the two measurements differ. A statistical model was constructed to test for potential improvement in specificity for the prediction of 30-day mortality after acute PE using right ventricular measurements from ECG-gated CT versus non-gated CT. RESULTS: The RCC (0.90 confidence interval) for non-gated and ECG-gated end-diastolic four-chamber and axial RV/LV diameter ratios were 0.83 (0.68-0.90) and 0.88 (0.74-0.95). The median absolute percent differences suggested a high degree of concordance between gated and non-gated measurements. The statistical model predicted that measuring the RV/LV diameter ratio from end-diastole using ECG-gated CT rather than non-gated CT would yield a potential improvement in specificity for death after PE of 0.035 (0.020-0.060) for axial diameter ratios and 0.035 (0.020-0.055) for four-chamber diameter ratios. CONCLUSION: The benefit from a separate ECG-gated CT scan for the evaluation of RV ventricular diameter, area, and volume measurements is minimal and does not justify its routine clinical use.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare cardiac ventricular measurements from non-gated CT and end-diastolic ECG-gated CT in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: With institutional review board approval, 30 adult patients (16 female, mean age = 56 years, range = 26-77 years) underwent ECG-gated cardiac CT within 36 h of their CT diagnosis of acute PE to assess the right ventricle (RV). The axial and reformatted four-chamber ventricular diameters, areas and volumes were measured for both the non-gated CT and the ECG-gated CT in end-diastole and end-systole. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (RCC) was calculated to compare measurements from the non-gated CT to the gated end-diastolic measurements. The median absolute differences between the gated and non-gated measurements relative to the gated measurements were provided to summarize the degree to which the two measurements differ. A statistical model was constructed to test for potential improvement in specificity for the prediction of 30-day mortality after acute PE using right ventricular measurements from ECG-gated CT versus non-gated CT. RESULTS: The RCC (0.90 confidence interval) for non-gated and ECG-gated end-diastolic four-chamber and axial RV/LV diameter ratios were 0.83 (0.68-0.90) and 0.88 (0.74-0.95). The median absolute percent differences suggested a high degree of concordance between gated and non-gated measurements. The statistical model predicted that measuring the RV/LV diameter ratio from end-diastole using ECG-gated CT rather than non-gated CT would yield a potential improvement in specificity for death after PE of 0.035 (0.020-0.060) for axial diameter ratios and 0.035 (0.020-0.055) for four-chamber diameter ratios. CONCLUSION: The benefit from a separate ECG-gated CT scan for the evaluation of RV ventricular diameter, area, and volume measurements is minimal and does not justify its routine clinical use.
Authors: Rene Quiroz; Nils Kucher; U Joseph Schoepf; Florian Kipfmueller; Scott D Solomon; Philip Costello; Samuel Z Goldhaber Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-05-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alexander Lembcke; Pascal M Dohmen; Marc Dewey; Christian Klessen; Thomas Elgeti; Kay-Geert A Hermann; Wolfgang F Konertz; Bernd Hamm; Dietmar E Kivelitz Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Halil Doğan; Lucia J M Kroft; Jeroen J Bax; Joanne D Schuijf; Rob J van der Geest; Joost Doornbos; Albert de Roos Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Rutger W van der Meer; Peter M T Pattynama; Marco J L van Strijen; Annette A van den Berg-Huijsmans; Ieneke J C Hartmann; Hein Putter; Albert de Roos; Menno V Huisman Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-04-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: U Joseph Schoepf; Nils Kucher; Florian Kipfmueller; Rene Quiroz; Philip Costello; Samuel Z Goldhaber Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-11-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kanako K Kumamaru; Andetta R Hunsaker; Arash Bedayat; Shigeyoshi Soga; Jason Signorelli; Kimberly Adams; Nicole Wake; Michael T Lu; Frank J Rybicki Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Farbod N Rahaghi; Gonzalo Vegas-Sanchez-Ferrero; Jasleen K Minhas; Carolyn E Come; Isaac De La Bruere; James M Wells; Germán González; Surya P Bhatt; Brett E Fenster; Alejandro A Diaz; Puja Kohli; James C Ross; David A Lynch; Mark T Dransfield; Russel P Bowler; Maria J Ledesma-Carbayo; Raúl San José Estépar; George R Washko Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Sheng Yu; Kanako K Kumamaru; Elizabeth George; Ruth M Dunne; Arash Bedayat; Matey Neykov; Andetta R Hunsaker; Karin E Dill; Tianxi Cai; Frank J Rybicki Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2014-08-10 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Christopher L Schlett; Dylan C Kwait; Amir A Mahabadi; Fabian Bamberg; Christopher J O'Donnell; Caroline S Fox; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Halil Doğan; Albert de Roos; Jacob Geleijins; Menno V Huisman; Lucia J M Kroft Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.630