PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of a novel automated left ventricle (LV) segmentation algorithm (LV-METRIC) that involves no geometric assumptions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LV-METRIC and manual tracing (MT) were used independently to quantify LV volumes and LVEF (ejection fraction) for 151 consecutive patients who underwent cine-CMR (steady-state free precession). Phase contrast imaging was used to independently measure stroke volume. RESULTS: LV-METRIC was successful in all cases. Mean LVEF was within 1 point of MT (Delta 0.6 +/- 2.3%, P < 0.05), with smaller differences among patients with (0.5 +/- 2.5%) versus those without (0.9 +/- 2.3%; P = 0.01) advanced systolic dysfunction (LVEF <or= 35% by MT). LV volumes by LV-METRIC were slightly smaller than MT during end-diastole (3.9 +/- 6.8 mL, P < 0.001) and end-systole (1.4 +/- 5.5 mL, P < 0.01). Mean processing time was 22 +/- 13 seconds for LV-METRIC and 4:59 +/- 1:56 minutes for MT (P < 0.001). Processing time correlated with LV blood volume by MT (r = 0.43) and LV-METRIC (r = 0.55), but slope was 10-fold steeper for MT (0.02 vs. 0.001), indicating greater proportionate time increases in relation to chamber dilation. Compared to stroke volume by phase contrast, LV-METRIC yielded smaller differences (0.3 +/- 18.3 mL) than MT (2.5 +/- 17.2 mL; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among a broad series of consecutive patients undergoing CMR, automated LVEF by LV-METRIC was within 1 point of MT with processing time reduced 14-fold. Stroke volume by LV-METRIC yielded improved agreement with an independent standard of phase contrast imaging. (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of a novel automated left ventricle (LV) segmentation algorithm (LV-METRIC) that involves no geometric assumptions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LV-METRIC and manual tracing (MT) were used independently to quantify LV volumes and LVEF (ejection fraction) for 151 consecutive patients who underwent cine-CMR (steady-state free precession). Phase contrast imaging was used to independently measure stroke volume. RESULTS: LV-METRIC was successful in all cases. Mean LVEF was within 1 point of MT (Delta 0.6 +/- 2.3%, P < 0.05), with smaller differences among patients with (0.5 +/- 2.5%) versus those without (0.9 +/- 2.3%; P = 0.01) advanced systolic dysfunction (LVEF <or= 35% by MT). LV volumes by LV-METRIC were slightly smaller than MT during end-diastole (3.9 +/- 6.8 mL, P < 0.001) and end-systole (1.4 +/- 5.5 mL, P < 0.01). Mean processing time was 22 +/- 13 seconds for LV-METRIC and 4:59 +/- 1:56 minutes for MT (P < 0.001). Processing time correlated with LV blood volume by MT (r = 0.43) and LV-METRIC (r = 0.55), but slope was 10-fold steeper for MT (0.02 vs. 0.001), indicating greater proportionate time increases in relation to chamber dilation. Compared to stroke volume by phase contrast, LV-METRIC yielded smaller differences (0.3 +/- 18.3 mL) than MT (2.5 +/- 17.2 mL; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among a broad series of consecutive patients undergoing CMR, automated LVEF by LV-METRIC was within 1 point of MT with processing time reduced 14-fold. Stroke volume by LV-METRIC yielded improved agreement with an independent standard of phase contrast imaging. (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Michael L Chuang; Philimon Gona; Gilion L T F Hautvast; Carol J Salton; Marcel Breeuwer; Christopher J O'Donnell; Warren J Manning Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jonathan W Weinsaft; Jiwon Kim; Chaitanya B Medicherla; Claudia L Ma; Noel C F Codella; Nina Kukar; Subhi Alaref; Raymond J Kim; Richard B Devereux Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-10-14
Authors: Noel C F Codella; Hae Yeoun Lee; David S Fieno; Debbie W Chen; Sandra Hurtado-Rua; Minisha Kochar; John Paul Finn; Robert Judd; Parag Goyal; Jesse Schenendorf; Matthew D Cham; Richard B Devereux; Martin Prince; Yi Wang; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Jiwon Kim; Sara Rodriguez-Diego; Aparna Srinivasan; Rachel-Maria Brown; Meridith P Pollie; Antonino Di Franco; Samantha R Goldburg; Jonathan Y Siden; Mark B Ratcliffe; Robert A Levine; Richard B Devereux; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: Francesco Secchi; Marco Alì; Marcello Petrini; Francesca Romana Pluchinotta; Andrea Cozzi; Mario Carminati; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Abiola O Dele-Michael; Kana Fujikura; Richard B Devereux; Fahmida Islam; Ingrid Hriljac; Sean R Wilson; Fay Lin; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: Jiwon Kim; Jonathan D Kochav; Sergey Gurevich; Anika Afroz; Maya Petashnick; Samuel Volo; Belen Diaz; Peter M Okin; Evelyn Horn; Richard B Devereux; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Jiwon Kim; Aparna Srinivasan; Tania Seoane; Antonino Di Franco; Charles S Peskin; David M McQueen; Tracy K Paul; Attila Feher; Alexi Geevarghese; Meenakshi Rozenstrauch; Richard B Devereux; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2016-06-11 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Akos Varga-Szemes; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; U Joseph Schoepf; Julian L Wichmann; Pal Suranyi; Carlo N De Cecco; Paola M Cannaò; Matthias Renker; Stefanie Mangold; Mary A Fox; Balazs Ruzsics Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 5.315