OBJECTIVE: Quantitative determination of myocardial perfusion currently involves time-consuming postprocessing. This retrospective study presents automatic postprocessing consisting of image registration and image segmentation to obtain regional signal intensity time courses and quantitative perfusion values. METHODS: The automatic postprocessing was tested in 75 examinations in volunteers and patients, 57 at rest and 18 under adenosine-induced stress, and compared with a manual evaluation. In a substudy consisting of 10 examinations, the interobserver variability of the manual evaluation was investigated. RESULTS: Manual evaluation resulted in perfusion values with a median of 0.70 ml/g/min ranging from 0.03 to 3.68 ml/g/min. For all 75 examinations, the variability (standard deviation of the differences) between automatic and manual evaluation was 0.34 ml/g/min. Interobserver variability was of a similar order, 0.35 ml/g/min for all measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Automatic evaluation was successfully applied to all datasets giving results equivalent to manual evaluation. The time of user interaction for one single slice could be reduced from 25 min for manual evaluation to less than 1 min using the automatic algorithm. This reduction may allow quantitative magnetic resonance perfusion imaging to become a routine clinical procedure.
OBJECTIVE: Quantitative determination of myocardial perfusion currently involves time-consuming postprocessing. This retrospective study presents automatic postprocessing consisting of image registration and image segmentation to obtain regional signal intensity time courses and quantitative perfusion values. METHODS: The automatic postprocessing was tested in 75 examinations in volunteers and patients, 57 at rest and 18 under adenosine-induced stress, and compared with a manual evaluation. In a substudy consisting of 10 examinations, the interobserver variability of the manual evaluation was investigated. RESULTS: Manual evaluation resulted in perfusion values with a median of 0.70 ml/g/min ranging from 0.03 to 3.68 ml/g/min. For all 75 examinations, the variability (standard deviation of the differences) between automatic and manual evaluation was 0.34 ml/g/min. Interobserver variability was of a similar order, 0.35 ml/g/min for all measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Automatic evaluation was successfully applied to all datasets giving results equivalent to manual evaluation. The time of user interaction for one single slice could be reduced from 25 min for manual evaluation to less than 1 min using the automatic algorithm. This reduction may allow quantitative magnetic resonance perfusion imaging to become a routine clinical procedure.
Authors: J P Vallée; F Lazeyras; L Kasuboski; P Chatelain; N Howarth; A Righetti; D Didier Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: J Schwitter; D Nanz; S Kneifel; K Bertschinger; M Büchi; P R Knüsel; B Marincek; T F Lüscher; G K von Schulthess Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-05-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Giacomo Tarroni; Cristiana Corsi; Patrick F Antkowiak; Federico Veronesi; Christopher M Kramer; Frederick H Epstein; James Walter; Claudio Lamberti; Roberto M Lang; Victor Mor-Avi; Amit R Patel Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-08-14 Impact factor: 11.105