Kai Lin1, Jeremy D Collins2, Donald M Lloyd-Jones3, Marie-Pierre Jolly4, Debiao Li2, Michael Markl2, James C Carr2. 1. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, 737 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60611. Electronic address: kai-lin@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, 737 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60611. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Siemens Corporation, Corporate Technology, Princeton, New Jersey.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of automated quantification of left ventricular function and mass based on heart deformation analysis (HDA) in asymptomatic older adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study complied with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations. Following the approval of the institutional review board, 160 asymptomatic older participants were recruited for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging including two-dimensional cine images covering the entire left ventricle in short-axis view. Data analysis included the calculation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular mass (LVM), and cardiac output (CO) using HDA and standard global cardiac function analysis (delineation of end-systolic and end-diastolic left ventricle epi- and endocardial borders). The agreement between methods was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CoV). RESULTS: HDA had a shorter processing time than the standard method (1.5 ± 0.3 min/case vs. 5.8 ± 1.4 min/case, P < 0.001). There was good agreement for LVEF (ICC = 0.552, CoV = 10.5%), CO (ICC = 0.773, CoV = 13.5%), and LVM (ICC = 0.859, CoV = 14.5%) acquired with the standard method and HDA. There was a systemic bias toward lower LVEF (62.8% ± 8.3% vs. 69.3% ± 6.7%, P < 0.001) and CO (4.4 ± 1.0 L/min vs. 4.8 ± 1.3 L/min, P < 0.001) by HDA compared to the standard technique. Conversely, HDA overestimated LVM (114.8 ± 30.1 g vs. 100.2 ± 29.0 g, P < 0.001) as compared to the reference method. CONCLUSIONS: HDA has the potential to measure LVEF, CO, and LVM without the need for user interaction based on standard cardiac two-dimensional cine images.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of automated quantification of left ventricular function and mass based on heart deformation analysis (HDA) in asymptomatic older adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study complied with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations. Following the approval of the institutional review board, 160 asymptomatic older participants were recruited for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging including two-dimensional cine images covering the entire left ventricle in short-axis view. Data analysis included the calculation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular mass (LVM), and cardiac output (CO) using HDA and standard global cardiac function analysis (delineation of end-systolic and end-diastolic left ventricle epi- and endocardial borders). The agreement between methods was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CoV). RESULTS: HDA had a shorter processing time than the standard method (1.5 ± 0.3 min/case vs. 5.8 ± 1.4 min/case, P < 0.001). There was good agreement for LVEF (ICC = 0.552, CoV = 10.5%), CO (ICC = 0.773, CoV = 13.5%), and LVM (ICC = 0.859, CoV = 14.5%) acquired with the standard method and HDA. There was a systemic bias toward lower LVEF (62.8% ± 8.3% vs. 69.3% ± 6.7%, P < 0.001) and CO (4.4 ± 1.0 L/min vs. 4.8 ± 1.3 L/min, P < 0.001) by HDA compared to the standard technique. Conversely, HDA overestimated LVM (114.8 ± 30.1 g vs. 100.2 ± 29.0 g, P < 0.001) as compared to the reference method. CONCLUSIONS: HDA has the potential to measure LVEF, CO, and LVM without the need for user interaction based on standard cardiac two-dimensional cine images.
Authors: H P Kühl; A Bücker; A Franke; S Maul; C Nolte-Ernsting; T Reineke; R Hoffmann; R W Günther; P Hanrath Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Thomas Schlosser; Konstantin Pagonidis; Christoph U Herborn; Peter Hunold; Kai-Uwe Waltering; Thomas C Lauenstein; Jörg Barkhausen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kristin A MacDonald; Mark D Kittleson; Tracy Reed; Richard Larson; Philip Kass; Erik R Wisner Journal: Vet Radiol Ultrasound Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.363
Authors: Nicholas G Bellenger; Neil J Marcus; Kim Rajappan; Magdi Yacoub; Nicholas R Banner; Dudley J Pennell Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2002 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Nikhil S Phatak; Steve A Maas; Alexander I Veress; Nathan A Pack; Edward V R Di Bella; Jeffrey A Weiss Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Damian J Tyler; Lucy E Hudsmith; Steffen E Petersen; Jane M Francis; Peter Weale; Stefan Neubauer; Kieran Clarke; Matthew D Robson Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2006 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Andreas Schuster; Shelby Kutty; Asif Padiyath; Victoria Parish; Paul Gribben; David A Danford; Marcus R Makowski; Boris Bigalke; Philipp Beerbaum; Eike Nagel Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Leon Lenchik; Laura Heacock; Ashley A Weaver; Robert D Boutin; Tessa S Cook; Jason Itri; Christopher G Filippi; Rao P Gullapalli; James Lee; Marianna Zagurovskaya; Tara Retson; Kendra Godwin; Joey Nicholson; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Kai Lin; Leng Meng; Jeremy D Collins; Varun Chowdhary; Michael Markl; James C Carr Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Eric J Keller; Shanna Fang; Kai Lin; Benjamin H Freed; Peter M Smith; Bruce S Spottiswoode; Rachel Davids; Maria Carr; Marie-Pierre Jolly; Michael Markl; James C Carr; Jeremy D Collins Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-02-26 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Kai Lin; Leng Meng; Jeremy D Collins; Varun Chowdhary; Michael Markl; James C Carr Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Kai Lin; Jeremy D Collins; Varun Chowdhary; Michael Markl; James C Carr Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Kai Lin; Roberto Sarnari; Ashitha Pathrose; Daniel Z Gordon; Julie Blaisdell; Michael Markl; James C Carr Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 4.531
Authors: Avan Suinesiaputra; Mihir M Sanghvi; Nay Aung; Jose Miguel Paiva; Filip Zemrak; Kenneth Fung; Elena Lukaschuk; Aaron M Lee; Valentina Carapella; Young Jin Kim; Jane Francis; Stefan K Piechnik; Stefan Neubauer; Andreas Greiser; Marie-Pierre Jolly; Carmel Hayes; Alistair A Young; Steffen E Petersen Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 2.357