PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of cardiac dual-source CT (DSCT) reconstructions obtained at 5% and 10% of the cardiac cycle and MRI for quantifying global left ventricular (LV) function and mass in heart transplant recipients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We prospectively included 23 heart transplant recipients (21 male, mean age 60±11.7 years) who underwent cardiac DSCT and MRI examinations. We compared LV parameters on cardiac DSCT reconstructions obtained at 5% (0%-95%) and 10% (0%-90%) intervals of the cardiac cycle and on double-oblique short-axis MR images. We determined ejection fraction (EF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), and myocardial mass using commercially available semiautomated segmentation analysis software for DSCT datasets and conventional manual contour tracing for MR studies. RESULTS: Using different reconstruction intervals to quantify LV parameters at DSCT resulted in non-significant differences (P>.05). Compared to MRI, DSCT slightly overestimated LV-EDV, ESV, and mass when both 5% (11.5±25.1ml, 6.8±10.9ml, and 28.3±21.6g, respectively) and 10% (mean difference 15.3±26.3ml, 7.4±11.5ml, and 29.3±18.7g, respectively) reconstruction intervals were used. DSCT and MRI estimates of EF and SV were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: In heart transplant recipients, DSCT allows reliable quantification of LV function and mass compared with MRI, even using 10% interval reconstructions.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of cardiac dual-source CT (DSCT) reconstructions obtained at 5% and 10% of the cardiac cycle and MRI for quantifying global left ventricular (LV) function and mass in heart transplant recipients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We prospectively included 23 heart transplant recipients (21 male, mean age 60±11.7 years) who underwent cardiac DSCT and MRI examinations. We compared LV parameters on cardiac DSCT reconstructions obtained at 5% (0%-95%) and 10% (0%-90%) intervals of the cardiac cycle and on double-oblique short-axis MR images. We determined ejection fraction (EF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), and myocardial mass using commercially available semiautomated segmentation analysis software for DSCT datasets and conventional manual contour tracing for MR studies. RESULTS: Using different reconstruction intervals to quantify LV parameters at DSCT resulted in non-significant differences (P>.05). Compared to MRI, DSCT slightly overestimated LV-EDV, ESV, and mass when both 5% (11.5±25.1ml, 6.8±10.9ml, and 28.3±21.6g, respectively) and 10% (mean difference 15.3±26.3ml, 7.4±11.5ml, and 29.3±18.7g, respectively) reconstruction intervals were used. DSCT and MRI estimates of EF and SV were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: In heart transplant recipients, DSCT allows reliable quantification of LV function and mass compared with MRI, even using 10% interval reconstructions.