| Literature DB >> 30355287 |
Julien Frandon1,2,3, Stéphanie Bricq4, Zakarya Bentatou5, Laetitia Marcadet6, Pierre Antoine Barral7, Mathieu Finas5, Daniel Fagret8, Frank Kober5, Gilbert Habib9, Monique Bernard5, Alain Lalande4,10, Lucile Miquerol4, Alexis Jacquier5,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The definition of left ventricular (LV) non-compaction is controversial, and discriminating between normal and excessive LV trabeculation remains challenging. Our goal was to quantify LV trabeculation on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) images in a genetic mouse model of non-compaction using a dedicated semi-automatic software package and to compare our results to the histology used as a gold standard.Entities:
Keywords: CMR; Genetic mouse model; Left ventricular non-compaction; Semi-automatic segmentation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30355287 PMCID: PMC6201553 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-018-0489-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Fig. 2Example of left ventricular (LV) high resolution CMR segmentation and corresponding eosin stained histological images. a-b: Example of a midventricular short axis, cine image from a mutant mouse heart (a) and slice at the same level from eosin stained histological slide (b). c-d: Semi-automatic LV segmentation of the cine image: the epicardial border appears in blue, the endocardial border in red, the trabecular border in green (c) and the trabecular surface in green (d). The papillary muscles were segmented and included in the compacted area (yellow line) (c). e: Manual LV segmentation of the histological slice using the same segmentation procedure: epicardial border in blue, endocardial border in red, trabecular border in green. The papillary muscles were segmented and included in the compacted area (yellow line)
Mice characteristics at time of CMR: median values (min-max)
| Control ( | Mutant ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at time of CMR (days) | 118 (60–120) | 60 (47–112) | 0.17 |
| Total weight (g) | 30.6 (24–33) | 24 (16.5–34) | 0.30 |
| Heart weight (mg) | 132 (124–181) | 196 (153–233) | 0.07 |
Fig. 3Example of left ventricular whole heart CMR segmentation and corresponding eosin stained histological images. Example of a basal (left), midventricular (middle) and apical (right), histological slices with the corresponding short axis cine image from a mutant mouse heart. The epicardial borders appear in blue, the endocardial borders in red, the papillary muscles in yellow, the trabecular borders in green and the trabecular surface after manual deletion of blood in green (bottom line)
Trabeculae segmentation: whole heart CMR vs histology
| CMR | Histology |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whole heart Mt (mg) | 6.31 (4.76–10.22) | 4.68 (2.3–8.4) | 0.16 |
| Apical Mt (mg) | 2.68 (1.56–4) | 1.68 (0.6–2.93) | 0.86 |
| Midventricular Mt (mg) | 2.59 (1.57–5) | 1.75 (0.65–2.47 | 0.94 |
| Basal Mt (mg) | 2.28 (1.21–5) | 0.97 (0.36–2.06) | 0.41 |
| Whole heart Mc (mg) | 57.52 (36.72–90.8) | 52.13 (34.63–86.59) | 0.7 |
| Apical Mc (mg) | 17.07 (8.87–27) | 17.13 (12.26–25.97) | 0.89 |
| Midventricular Mc (mg) | 24.1 (15.73–30) | 21.7 (16.09–32.34) | 0.56 |
| Basal Mc (mg) | 19.42 (12.1–29.5) | 17.95 (7.12–28.28) | 0.73 |
| Whole heart Mt/Mc(%) | 12.95 (6.36–17.57) | 9.19 (3.12–16) | 0.75 |
| Apical Mt/Mc (%) | 15.75 (7.61–33.03) | 10.85 (7.15–23.9) | 0.9 |
| Midventricular Mt/Mc (%) | 10.59 (6.9–16.67) | 8.51 (2.51–12.02) | 0.73 |
| Basal Mt/Mc (%) | 9.12 (7.99–14.67) | 5.4 (3.66–7.67) | 0.44 |
Trabeculae segmentation: high resolution CMR vs histology
| CMR | Histology |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mt (mg) | 0.92 (0.07–2.56) | 0.8 (0.4–2.23) | 0.88 |
| Mc (mg) | 12.24 (9.58–17.51) | 12.16 (8.89–16.6) | 0.74 |
| Mt/Mc (%) | 6.74 (0.66–17.33) | 6.17 (3.42–14.45) | 0.83 |
Fig. 4Correlation between high resolution CMR and histology. Linear regression (left) showing the relationship between histology and CMR quantifications of Mt (T) (top), Mc (C) (middle) and Mt/Mc (T/C) (bottom). Bland-Altman plots (right) showing the agreement between histology and CMR quantifications of T (top), C (middle) and T/C (bottom)
Fig. 5Intra- and Interobserver agreement. Bland and Altman plots showing the agreement for intraobserver measurements (left), and interobserver measurements (right) for CMR quantification of Mc (top), Mt (middle), Mt/Mc (bottom). Observer 1 first measurements were chosen as reference
Trabecular segmentation on high resolution CMR: control vs mutant mice
| Control (n = 5) | Mutant (n = 8) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mt from histology (mg) | 0.59 (0.04–0.78) | 1.61 (0.57–2.33) |
|
| Mt from CMR (mg) | 0.65 (0.07–0.71) | 1.66 (0.5–2.56) |
|
| Mc from histology (mg) | 12.16 (10.55–13.91) | 12.35 (8.89–15.53) | 1.00 |
| Mc from CMR (mg) | 12.24 (10.63–12.98) | 12.17 (9.58–17.51) | 0.94 |
| Mt/Mc from histology (%) | 4.24 (3.54–6.17) | 13.72 (3.43–19.12) | 0.06 |
| Mt/Mc from CMR (%) | 5.01 (0.66–6.08) | 14.21 (2.86–17.33) |
|
p < .05 indicate entries in boldface
Fig. 6comparison between control and mutant mice on high resolution CMR. Box-and-whisker plots comparing Mc (left), Mt (middle) and Mt/Mc (right) quantification on CMR, between control and mutant mice