User-dependent variability in mitral valve segmentation and its impact on CFD-computed hemodynamic parameters
While novel tools for segmentation of the mitral valve are often based on automatic image processing, they mostly require manual interaction by a proficient user. Those segmentations are essential for numerical support of mitral valve treatment using computational fluid dynamics, where the reconstructed geometry is incorporated into a simulation domain. To quantify the uncertainty and reliability of hemodynamic simulations, it is crucial to examine the influence of user-dependent variability in valve segmentation.
Previously, the inter-user variability of landmarks in mitral valve segmentation was investigated. Here, the inter-user variability of geometric parameters of the mitral valve, projected orifice area (OA) and projected annulus area (AA), is investigated for 10 mitral valve geometries, each segmented by three users. Furthermore, the propagation of those variations into numerically calculated hemodynamics, i.e., the blood flow velocity, was investigated.
Among the three geometric valve parameters, AA was least user-dependent. Almost all deviations to the mean were below 10%. Larger variations were observed for OA. Variations observed for the numerically calculated hemodynamics were in the same order of magnitude as those of geometric parameters. No correlation between variation of geometric parameters and variation of calculated hemodynamic parameters was found.
Errors introduced due to the user-dependency were of the same size as the variations of calculated hemodynamics. The variation was thereby of the same scale as deviations in clinical measurements of blood flow velocity using Doppler echocardiography. Since no correlation between geometric and hemodynamic uncertainty was found, further investigation of the complex relationship between anatomy, leaflet shape and flow is necessary.
KeywordsMitral valve Patient specific Hemodynamic Virtual treatment planning CFD Image segmentation Uncertainty
This work is part of the BMBF VIP+ project DSSMitral (funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under Grant No. 03VP00851) and the EurValve project (funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research program under Grant No. 689617).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, De Bonis M, Hamm C, Holm PJ, Iung B, Lancellotti P, Lansac E, Rodriguez Muñoz D, Rosenhek R, Sjögren J, Tornos Mas P, Vahanian A, Walther T, Wendler O, Windecker S, Zamorano JL (2017) 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 38(36):2739–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Kainuma S, Taniguchi K, Daimon T, Sakaguchi T, Funatsu T, Kondoh H, Miyagawa S, Takeda K, Shudo Y, Masai T, Fujita S, Nishino M, Sawa Y (2011) Does stringent restrictive annuloplasty for functional mitral regurgitation cause functional mitral stenosis and pulmonary hypertension? Circulation 124(11 suppl 1):S97–S106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Quiñones MA, Otto CM, Stoddard M, Waggoner A, Zoghbi WA (2002) Recommendations for quantification of Doppler echocardiography: a report from the Doppler Quantification Task Force of the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr Off Publ Am Soc Echocardiogr 15(2):167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Taylor CA (2014) Method and system for patient-specific modeling of blood flow, US Patent 8,734,357Google Scholar
- 23.Vellguth K, Brüning J, Goubergrits L, Tautz L, Hennemuth A, Kertzscher U, Degener F, Kelm M, Sündermann S, Kuehne T (2018) Development of a modeling pipeline for the prediction of hemodynamic outcome after virtual mitral valve repair using image-based CFD. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 13(11):1795–1805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Vellguth K, Tautz L, Hennemuth A, Degener F, Wamala I, Sündermann S. CT segmented mitral valve geometries. open data on Zenodo.org. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2702813
- 25.Wenk JF, Zhang Z, Cheng G, Malhotra D, Acevedo-Bolton G, Burger M, Suzuki T, Saloner DA, Wallace AW, Guccione JM, Ratcliffe MB (2010) First finite element model of the left ventricle with mitral valve: insights into ischemic mitral regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg 89(5):1546–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, Foster E, Gottdiener JS, Grayburn PA, Khandheria BK, Levine RA, Marx GR, Miller FA, Nakatani S, Quiñones MA, Rakowski H, Rodriguez LL, Swaminathan M, Waggoner AD, Weissman NJ, Zabalgoitia M (2009) Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 22(9):975–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar