Post-processing in cardiovascular computed tomography: performance of a client server solution versus a stand-alone solution.

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of server-based (CSS) versus stand-alone post-processing software (ES) for the evaluation of cardiovascular CT examinations (cvCT) and to determine the crucial steps.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of 40 patients (20 patients for coronary artery evaluation and 20 patients prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]) were evaluated by 5 radiologists with CSS and ES. Data acquisition was performed using a dual-source 128-row CT unit (SOMATOM Definition Flash, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) and a 64-row CT unit (Brilliance 64, Philips, Hamburg, Germany). The following workflow was evaluated: Data loading, aorta and coronary segmentation, curved multiplanar reconstruction (cMPR) and 3 D volume rendering technique (3D-VRT), measuring of coronary artery stenosis and planimetry of the aortic annulus. The time requirement and subjective quality for the workflow were evaluated.
RESULTS: The coronary arteries as well as the TAVI data could be evaluated significantly faster with CSS (5.5  ±  2.9  min and 8.2  ±  4.0  min, respectively) than with ES (13.9  ±  5.2  min and 15.2  ±  10.9  min, respectively, p ≤  0.01). Segmentation of the aorta (CSS: 1.9 ±  2.0  min, ES: 3.7  ±  3.3  min), generating cMPR of coronaries (CSS: 0.5  ±  0.2  min, ES: 5.1  ±  2.6  min), aorta and iliac vessels (CSS: 0.5  ±  0.4  min and 0.4  ±  0.4  min, respectively, ES: 1.6  ±  0.7  min and 2.8  ±  3  min, respectively) could be performed significantly faster with CSS than with ES with higher quality of cMPR, measuring of coronary stenosis and 3D-VRT (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Evaluation of cvCT can be accomplished significantly faster and better with CSS than with ES.  The segmentation remains the most time-consuming workflow step, so optimization of segmentation algorithms could improve performance even further. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.