Lin Zhang1,2, Olivier Huttin3, Pierre-Yves Marie2,4,5, Jacques Felblinger1,2,5,6, Marine Beaumont1,6, Christian DE Chillou1,2,3, Nicolas Girerd2,3,7, Damien Mandry8,9,10. 1. INSERM, U947, IADI, Nancy, F-54000, France. 2. Université de Lorraine, Nancy, F-54000, France. 3. CHRU Nancy, Departement de Cardiologie, Nancy, F-54000, France. 4. INSERM, U961, Nancy, F-54000, France. 5. CHRU Nancy, Pôle Imagerie, Nancy, F-54000, France. 6. INSERM, CIC-IT 1433, Nancy, F-54000, France. 7. INSERM, CIC-P 9501, Nancy, F-54000, France. 8. INSERM, U947, IADI, Nancy, F-54000, France. damien.mandry@univ-lorraine.fr. 9. Université de Lorraine, Nancy, F-54000, France. damien.mandry@univ-lorraine.fr. 10. CHRU Nancy, Pôle Imagerie, Nancy, F-54000, France. damien.mandry@univ-lorraine.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare three widely used methods for myocardial infarct (MI) sizing on late gadolinium-enhanced (LGE) magnetic resonance (MR) images: manual delineation and two semiautomated techniques (full-width at half-maximum [FWHM] and n-standard deviation [SD]). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3T phase-sensitive inversion-recovery (PSIR) LGE images of 114 patients after an acute MI (2-4 days and 6 months) were analyzed by two independent observers to determine both total and core infarct sizes (TIS/CIS). Manual delineation served as the reference for determination of optimal thresholds for semiautomated methods after thresholding at multiple values. Reproducibility and accuracy were expressed as overall bias ± 95% limits of agreement. RESULTS: Mean infarct sizes by manual methods were 39.0%/24.4% for the acute MI group (TIS/CIS) and 29.7%/17.3% for the chronic MI group. The optimal thresholds (ie, providing the closest mean value to the manual method) were FWHM30% and 3SD for the TIS measurement and FWHM45% and 6SD for the CIS measurement (paired t-test; all P > 0.05). The best reproducibility was obtained using FWHM. For TIS measurement in the acute MI group, intra-/interobserver agreements, from Bland-Altman analysis, with FWHM30%, 3SD, and manual were -0.02 ± 7.74%/-0.74 ± 5.52%, 0.31 ± 9.78%/2.96 ± 16.62% and -2.12 ± 8.86%/0.18 ± 16.12, respectively; in the chronic MI group, the corresponding values were 0.23 ± 3.5%/-2.28 ± 15.06, -0.29 ± 10.46%/3.12 ± 13.06% and 1.68 ± 6.52%/-2.88 ± 9.62%, respectively. A similar trend for reproducibility was obtained for CIS measurement. However, semiautomated methods produced inconsistent results (variabilities of 24-46%) compared to manual delineation. CONCLUSION: The FWHM technique was the most reproducible method for infarct sizing both in acute and chronic MI. However, both FWHM and n-SD methods showed limited accuracy compared to manual delineation. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1206-1217.
PURPOSE: To compare three widely used methods for myocardial infarct (MI) sizing on late gadolinium-enhanced (LGE) magnetic resonance (MR) images: manual delineation and two semiautomated techniques (full-width at half-maximum [FWHM] and n-standard deviation [SD]). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3T phase-sensitive inversion-recovery (PSIR) LGE images of 114 patients after an acute MI (2-4 days and 6 months) were analyzed by two independent observers to determine both total and core infarct sizes (TIS/CIS). Manual delineation served as the reference for determination of optimal thresholds for semiautomated methods after thresholding at multiple values. Reproducibility and accuracy were expressed as overall bias ± 95% limits of agreement. RESULTS: Mean infarct sizes by manual methods were 39.0%/24.4% for the acute MI group (TIS/CIS) and 29.7%/17.3% for the chronic MI group. The optimal thresholds (ie, providing the closest mean value to the manual method) were FWHM30% and 3SD for the TIS measurement and FWHM45% and 6SD for the CIS measurement (paired t-test; all P > 0.05). The best reproducibility was obtained using FWHM. For TIS measurement in the acute MI group, intra-/interobserver agreements, from Bland-Altman analysis, with FWHM30%, 3SD, and manual were -0.02 ± 7.74%/-0.74 ± 5.52%, 0.31 ± 9.78%/2.96 ± 16.62% and -2.12 ± 8.86%/0.18 ± 16.12, respectively; in the chronic MI group, the corresponding values were 0.23 ± 3.5%/-2.28 ± 15.06, -0.29 ± 10.46%/3.12 ± 13.06% and 1.68 ± 6.52%/-2.88 ± 9.62%, respectively. A similar trend for reproducibility was obtained for CIS measurement. However, semiautomated methods produced inconsistent results (variabilities of 24-46%) compared to manual delineation. CONCLUSION: The FWHM technique was the most reproducible method for infarct sizing both in acute and chronic MI. However, both FWHM and n-SD methods showed limited accuracy compared to manual delineation. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1206-1217.
Authors: Heerajnarain Bulluck; Stefania Rosmini; Amna Abdel-Gadir; Anish N Bhuva; Thomas A Treibel; Marianna Fontana; Shane Weinmann; Alex Sirker; Anna S Herrey; Charlotte Manisty; James C Moon; Derek J Hausenloy Journal: Open Heart Date: 2016-12-12
Authors: Christoph Gräni; Christian Eichhorn; Loïc Bière; Kyoichi Kaneko; Venkatesh L Murthy; Vikram Agarwal; Ayaz Aghayev; Michael Steigner; Ron Blankstein; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Raymond Y Kwong Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Claire E Raphael; Frances Mitchell; Gajen Sunthar Kanaganayagam; Alphonsus C Liew; Elisa Di Pietro; Miguel Silva Vieira; Lina Kanapeckaite; Simon Newsome; John Gregson; Ruth Owen; Li-Yueh Hsu; Vassilis Vassiliou; Robert Cooper; Aamir Ali Mrcp; Tevfik F Ismail; Brandon Wong; Kristi Sun; Peter Gatehouse; David Firmin; Stuart Cook; Michael Frenneaux; Andrew Arai; Rory O'Hanlon; Dudley J Pennell; Sanjay K Prasad Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Dirk von Lewinski; Martin Benedikt; Hannes Alber; Jan Debrauwere; Pieter C Smits; István Édes; Róbert Gábor Kiss; Béla Merkely; Gergely Gyorgy Nagy; Pawel Ptaszynski; Maciej Zarebinski; Jacek Kubica; Andrzej Kleinrok; Andrew J S Coats; Markus Wallner Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-27 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Yoko Kato; Jorge R Kizer; Mohammad R Ostovaneh; Jason Lazar; Qi Peng; Rob J van der Geest; Joao A C Lima; Bharath Ambale-Venkatesh Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 1.930