Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of Automated Software in the Assessment of Segmental Left Ventricular Function in Cardiac CT: Comparison with Cardiac Magnetic Resonance

  • Computed Tomography
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the accuracy, reliability and time saving potential of a novel cardiac CT (CCT)-based, automated software for the assessment of segmental left ventricular function compared to visual and manual quantitative assessment of CCT and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR).

Methods

Forty-seven patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD) were enrolled in the study. Wall thickening was calculated. Segmental LV wall motion was automatically calculated and shown as a colour-coded polar map. Processing time for each method was recorded.

Results

Mean wall thickness in both systolic and diastolic phases on polar map, CCT, and CMR was 9.2 ± 0.1 mm and 14.9 ± 0.2 mm, 8.9 ± 0.1 mm and 14.5 ± 0.1 mm, 8.3 ± 0.1 mm and 13.6 ± 0.1 mm, respectively. Mean wall thickening was 68.4 ± 1.5 %, 64.8 ± 1.4 % and 67.1 ± 1.4 %, respectively. Agreement for the assessment of LV wall motion between CCT, CMR and polar maps was good. Bland–Altman plots and ICC indicated good agreement between CCT, CMR and automated polar maps of the diastolic and systolic segmental wall thickness and thickening. The processing time using polar map was significantly decreased compared with CCT and CMR.

Conclusion

Automated evaluation of segmental LV function with polar maps provides similar measurements to manual CCT and CMR evaluation, albeit with substantially reduced analysis time.

Key Points

• Cardiac computed tomography (CCT) can accurately assess segmental left ventricular wall function.

• A novel automated software permits accurate and fast evaluation of wall function.

• The software may improve the clinical implementation of segmental functional analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CAD:

Coronary artery disease

CCT:

Cardiac computed tomography

CMR:

Cardiac magnetic resonance

CABG:

Coronary artery bypasses graft

ED:

End-diastolic

ES:

End-systolic

GFR:

Glomerular filtration rate

ICC:

Interclass-correlation coefficient

LVEF:

Left ventricular ejection fraction

SSFP:

Steady-state free precession

References

  1. Seneviratne SK, Truong QA, Bamberg F, Rogers IS, Shapiro MD, Schlett CL et al (2010) Incremental diagnostic value of regional left ventricular function over coronary assessment by cardiac computed tomography for the detection of acute coronary syndrome in patients with acute chest pain: from the ROMICAT trial. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 3(4):375–383

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Malm S, Frigstad S, Sagberg E, Larsson H, Skjaerpe T (2004) Accurate and reproducible measurement of left ventricular volume and ejection fraction by contrast echocardiography: a comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 44(5):1030–1035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellenger NG, Burgess MI, Ray SG, Lahiri A, Coats AJ, Cleland JG et al (2000) Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes in heart failure by echocardiography, radionuclide ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance; are they interchangeable? Eur Heart J 21(16):1387–1396

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Petersen JW, Forder JR, Thomas JD, Moye LA, Lawson M, Loghin C et al (2011) Quantification of myocardial segmental function in acute and chronic ischemic heart disease and implications for cardiovascular cell therapy trials: a review from the NHLBI-Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 4(6):671–679

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Arraiza M, Azcarate PM, De Cecco CN, Viteri G, Simon-Yarza I, Hernandez-Estefania R et al (2012) Assessment of left ventricular parameters in orthotopic heart transplant recipients using dual-source CT and contrast-enhanced echocardiography: comparison with MRI. Eur J Radiol 81(11):3282–3288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bastarrika G, Arraiza M, De Cecco CN, Broncano J, Mastrobuoni S, Ubilla M et al (2009) Dual-source CT in heart transplant recipients: quantification of global left ventricular function and mass. J Thorac Imaging 24(2):103–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bastarrika G, Arraiza M, De Cecco CN, Mastrobuoni S, Ubilla M, Rabago G (2008) Quantification of left ventricular function and mass in heart transplant recipients using dual-source CT and MRI: initial clinical experience. Eur Radiol 18(9):1784–1790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cury RC, Nieman K, Shapiro MD, Butler J, Nomura CH, Ferencik M et al (2008) Comprehensive assessment of myocardial perfusion defects, regional wall motion, and left ventricular function by using 64-section multidetector CT. Radiology 248(2):466–475

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ko SM, Kim YJ, Park JH, Choi NM (2010) Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction and regional wall motion with 64-slice multidetector CT: a comparison with two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography. Br J Radiol 83(985):28–34

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tsai IC, Huang YL, Liao WC, Kao KH, Chen MC (2009) Left ventricular myocardial volumes measured during arterial and delayed phases of multidetector row computed tomography: a study on intra- and interobserver variability. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 25(Suppl 1):55–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Asferg C, Usinger L, Kristensen TS, Abdulla J (2012) Accuracy of multi-slice computed tomography for measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction compared with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 81(5):e757–e762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Belge B, Coche E, Pasquet A, Vanoverschelde JL, Gerber BL (2006) Accurate estimation of global and regional cardiac function by retrospectively gated multidetector row computed tomography: comparison with cine magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 16(7):1424–1433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Aviram G, Sirota-Cohen C, Steinvil A, Keren G, Banai S, Sosna J et al (2012) Automated volumetric analysis of four cardiac chambers in pulmonary embolism: a novel technology for fast risk stratification. Thromb Haemost 108(2):384–393

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Raman SV, Shah M, McCarthy B, Garcia A, Ferketich AK (2006) Multi-detector row cardiac computed tomography accurately quantifies right and left ventricular size and function compared with cardiac magnetic resonance. Am Heart J 151(3):736–744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, Jacobs AK, Kaul S, Laskey WK et al (2002) Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation 105(4):539–542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fischbach R, Juergens KU, Ozgun M, Maintz D, Grude M, Seifarth H et al (2007) Assessment of regional left ventricular function with multidetector-row computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 17(4):1009–1017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bruners P, Mahnken AH, Knackstedt C, Luhmann N, Spuntrup E, Das M et al (2007) Assessment of global left and right ventricular function using dual-source computed tomography (DSCT) in comparison to MRI: an experimental study in a porcine model. Investig Radiol 42(11):756–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is U. Joseph Schoepf. The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: UJS is a consultant for and receives research support from Bayer, Bracco, GE Medrad, and Siemens. The other authors declare that they have no financial disclosures. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: retrospective, diagnostic study, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, 25 Courtenay Drive, MSC 226, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA

    Rui Wang, Felix G. Meinel, U. Joseph Schoepf, James V. Spearman & Carlo N. De Cecco

  2. Department of Radiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Rui Wang

  3. Institute for Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital, Munich, Germany

    Felix G. Meinel

  4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    U. Joseph Schoepf

  5. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Malvern, PA, USA

    Christian Canstein

  6. Departments of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, University of Rome “Sapienza”, Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy

    Carlo N. De Cecco

Authors
  1. Rui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix G. Meinel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. U. Joseph Schoepf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Canstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James V. Spearman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carlo N. De Cecco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. Joseph Schoepf.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, R., Meinel, F.G., Schoepf, U.J. et al. Performance of Automated Software in the Assessment of Segmental Left Ventricular Function in Cardiac CT: Comparison with Cardiac Magnetic Resonance. Eur Radiol 25, 3560–3566 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3767-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3767-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation