| Literature DB >> 31102479 |
Sebastian Bidhult1,2, Erik Hedström1,3, Marcus Carlsson1, Johannes Töger1, Katarina Steding-Ehrenborg1,4, Håkan Arheden1, Anthony H Aletras1,5, Einar Heiberg1,2,6.
Abstract
Blood flow measurements in the ascending aorta and pulmonary artery from phase-contrast magnetic resonance images require accurate time-resolved vessel segmentation over the cardiac cycle. Current semi-automatic segmentation methods often involve time-consuming manual correction, relying on user experience for accurate results. The purpose of this study was to develop a semi-automatic vessel segmentation algorithm with shape constraints based on manual vessel delineations for robust segmentation of the ascending aorta and pulmonary artery, to evaluate the proposed method in healthy volunteers and patients with heart failure and congenital heart disease, to validate the method in a pulsatile flow phantom experiment, and to make the method freely available for research purposes. Algorithm shape constraints were extracted from manual reference delineations of the ascending aorta (n = 20) and pulmonary artery (n = 20) and were included in a semi-automatic segmentation method only requiring manual delineation in one image. Bias and variability (bias ± SD) for flow volume of the proposed algorithm versus manual reference delineations were 0·0 ± 1·9 ml in the ascending aorta (n = 151; seven healthy volunteers; 144 heart failure patients) and -1·7 ± 2·9 ml in the pulmonary artery (n = 40; 25 healthy volunteers; 15 patients with atrial septal defect). Interobserver bias and variability were lower (P = 0·008) for the proposed semi-automatic method (-0·1 ± 0·9 ml) compared to manual reference delineations (1·5 ± 5·1 ml). Phantom validation showed good agreement between the proposed method and timer-and-beaker flow volumes (0·4 ± 2·7 ml). In conclusion, the proposed semi-automatic vessel segmentation algorithm can be used for efficient analysis of flow and shunt volumes in the aorta and pulmonary artery.Entities:
Keywords: PC-MRI; ascending aorta; interobserver variability; phantom experiments; pulmonary artery; semi-automatic analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31102479 PMCID: PMC6852024 DOI: 10.1111/cpf.12582
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging ISSN: 1475-0961 Impact factor: 2.273
Figure 1Example of a 2D PC‐MR flow volume measurement. Top panel (a) shows reference delineations (dashed white lines) of the ascending aorta in a magnitude image (left) and the corresponding phase‐contrast image (right) in early ventricular systole in a transversal image plane. The lower panel (b) shows measured flow over time after delineations in all time phases throughout the cardiac cycle. The flow volume was calculated from the flow sum over time.
Figure 2The semi‐automatic segmentation method agreed with reference delineations for flow volumes in the aorta (top panel; n = 151 subjects), flow volumes in the pulmonary artery (middle panel; n = 40 subjects) and Qp/Qs ratio calculations (bottom panel; n = 25 subjects). Left panels show correlation plots between semi‐automatic and manual measurements. Dotted lines indicate lines of identity, and solid lines indicate linear regressions. Right panels show modified Bland–Altman analysis for semi‐automatic and manual measurements. Dotted lines indicate zero difference between compared methods, solid lines indicate bias, and dashed lines indicate 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Low bias and variability were found for the proposed segmentation method compared to reference delineations for flow volume measurements in both aorta and pulmonary artery and for Qp/Qs ratio. AO, ascending aorta; Pulm, pulmonary artery.
Figure 3Improvement in segmentation accuracy using the proposed shape constraints in two example cases. The left image shows a transversal image slice used for flow measurement in the ascending aorta, and the right image shows a double‐oblique image slice used for flow measurements in the pulmonary artery, both in ventricular diastole. Semi‐automatic inaccurate segmentations using an optimized active contour curvature force for shape constraints are shown as solid white lines. Improved semi‐automatic segmentations using the proposed method with shape‐constrained reconstruction are shown as dashed white lines.
Figure 4The proposed segmentation method resulted in similar performance when initialized at different time points of the RR interval. Top panel shows flow profiles over the RR interval averaged over all subjects for the ascending aorta (left) and the pulmonary artery (right). Middle panel shows flow volume bias and 95% limits of agreement (LoA; filled circles and error bars) of the semi‐automatic method versus reference delineations. Bottom panel shows average Dice coefficients and 95% limits of agreement (LoA; filled squares and error bars). The proposed segmentation method resulted in similar flow volume bias (filled circles; middle left panel), flow limits of agreement (error bars; middle left panel) and Dice coefficient performance (bottom left panel) when initialized at different time points for the ascending aorta. For the pulmonary artery, however, flow volume bias and limits of agreement were slightly sensitive to the time point of initialization (middle right panel). Pulmonary artery segmentations initialized within 10–55% of the RR interval showed stable flow volume bias (filled circles; middle right panel), flow volume limits of agreement (error bars; middle right panels) and Dice coefficient performance (bottom right panel). AO, ascending aorta; Pulm, pulmonary artery.
Figure 5Interobserver variability of flow volumes for the proposed semi‐automatic method (top panel) and manual delineations between two observers (bottom panel). Both panels show Bland–Altman analysis. Dotted lines indicate zero flow volume difference, solid lines indicate bias, and dashed lines indicate 95% limits of agreement (LoA). A clear reduction in interobserver variability of measured flow volumes was observed for the proposed semi‐automatic method compared to manual delineation. AO, ascending aorta (open circles); Pulm, pulmonary artery (open squares). The required time of analysis for an experienced observer was approximately 2 min for manual delineation and approximately 10 s for semi‐automatic delineation.
Figure 6Validation of PC‐MR flow measurements in a pulsatile phantom experiment. The plots show modified Bland–Altman analyses comparing timer‐and‐beaker flow measurements with flow from 2D PC‐MR using the proposed semi‐automatic delineation method (top panel) and by manual delineation (bottom panel). For both delineation methods, PC‐MR was in close agreement with timer‐and‐beaker measurements at 1·5T (open triangles) and 3T (open squares).