BACKGROUND: In humans with normal hearts multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) based volumetry was shown to correlate well with the gold standard, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). We correlated both techniques in patients with various degrees of heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) resulting from cardiac dilatation. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with a left ventricular enddiastolic volume (LV-EDV) of C 150 ml measured by angiography underwent MSCT and CMR scanning for left and right ventricular (LV, RV) volumetry. MSCT based short cardiac axis views were obtained beginning at the cardiac base advancing to the apex. These were reconstructed in 20 different time windows of the RR-interval (0-95%) serving for identification of enddiastole (ED) and end-systole (ES) and for planimetry. ED and ES volumes and the ejection fraction (EF) were calculated for LV and RV. MSCT based volumetry was compared with CMR. RESULTS: MSCT based LV volumetry significantly correlates with CMR as follows: LV-EDV r = 0.94, LV-ESV r = 0.98 and LV-EF r = 0.93, but significantly overestimates LV-EDV and LV-ESV and underestimates EF (P \ 0.0001). MSCT based RV volumetry significantly correlates with CMR as follows: RV-EDV r = 0.79, RVESV r = 0.78 and RV-EF r = 0.73, but again significantly overestimates RV-EDV and RV-ESV and underestimates RV-EF (P \ 0.0001). CONCLUSION: When compared with CMR a continuous overestimation of volumes and underestimation of EF needs to be considered when applying MSCT in HFREF patients.
BACKGROUND: In humans with normal hearts multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) based volumetry was shown to correlate well with the gold standard, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). We correlated both techniques in patients with various degrees of heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) resulting from cardiac dilatation. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with a left ventricular enddiastolic volume (LV-EDV) of C 150 ml measured by angiography underwent MSCT and CMR scanning for left and right ventricular (LV, RV) volumetry. MSCT based short cardiac axis views were obtained beginning at the cardiac base advancing to the apex. These were reconstructed in 20 different time windows of the RR-interval (0-95%) serving for identification of enddiastole (ED) and end-systole (ES) and for planimetry. ED and ES volumes and the ejection fraction (EF) were calculated for LV and RV. MSCT based volumetry was compared with CMR. RESULTS: MSCT based LV volumetry significantly correlates with CMR as follows: LV-EDV r = 0.94, LV-ESV r = 0.98 and LV-EF r = 0.93, but significantly overestimates LV-EDV and LV-ESV and underestimates EF (P \ 0.0001). MSCT based RV volumetry significantly correlates with CMR as follows: RV-EDV r = 0.79, RVESV r = 0.78 and RV-EF r = 0.73, but again significantly overestimates RV-EDV and RV-ESV and underestimates RV-EF (P \ 0.0001). CONCLUSION: When compared with CMR a continuous overestimation of volumes and underestimation of EF needs to be considered when applying MSCT in HFREF patients.
Authors: Matthias Grude; Kai Uwe Juergens; Thomas Wichter; Matthias Paul; Eva Maria Fallenberg; Joachim Georg Muller; Walter Heindel; Guenter Breithardt; Roman Fischbach Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Marc Dewey; Mira Müller; Stephan Eddicks; Dirk Schnapauff; Florian Teige; Wolfgang Rutsch; Adrian C Borges; Bernd Hamm Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kai U Juergens; Harald Seifarth; David Maintz; Matthias Grude; Murat Ozgun; Thomas Wichter; Walter Heindel; Roman Fischbach Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Javed Butler; Michael D Shapiro; Davinder S Jassal; Davindar Jassal; Tomas G Neilan; Tomas Neilan; John Nichols; Maros Ferencik; Thomas J Brady; Udo Hoffmann; Ricardo C Cury Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-11-27 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: David A Bluemke; Stephan Achenbach; Matthew Budoff; Thomas C Gerber; Bernard Gersh; L David Hillis; W Gregory Hundley; Warren J Manning; Beth Feller Printz; Matthias Stuber; Pamela K Woodard Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-06-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J G F Cleland; K Swedberg; F Follath; M Komajda; A Cohen-Solal; J C Aguilar; R Dietz; A Gavazzi; R Hobbs; J Korewicki; H C Madeira; V S Moiseyev; I Preda; W H van Gilst; J Widimsky; N Freemantle; Joanne Eastaugh; J Mason Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: David M Leistner; Ulrich Fischer-Rasokat; Jörg Honold; Florian H Seeger; Volker Schächinger; Ralf Lehmann; Hans Martin; Iris Burck; Carmen Urbich; Stefanie Dimmeler; Andreas M Zeiher; Birgit Assmus Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Christoph Langer; M Both; H Harders; M Lutz; M Eden; C Kühl; B Sattler; O Jansen; P Schaefer; N Frey Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Martin Koestenberger; Bert Nagel; William Ravekes; Allen D Everett; Hans Peter Stueger; Bernd Heinzl; Erich Sorantin; Gerhard Cvirn; Andreas Gamillscheg Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2010-09-12 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: M Grothoff; J Hoffmann; L Lehmkuhl; H Abdul-Khaliq; S Nitzsche; A Mahler; I Dähnert; F Berger; M Gutberlet Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2010-11-19 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Christian Sohns; Samuel Sossalla; Jan D Schmitto; Claudius Jacobshagen; Björn W Raab; Silvia Obenauer; Lars S Maier Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2010-02-21 Impact factor: 5.460