Advertisement

Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 44–49 | Cite as

Cardiothoracic ratio in postmortem computed tomography: reliability and threshold for the diagnosis of cardiomegaly

  • Sebastian WinklhoferEmail author
  • Nicole Berger
  • Thomas Ruder
  • Marina Elliott
  • Paul Stolzmann
  • Michael Thali
  • Hatem Alkadhi
  • Garyfalia Ampanozi
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the cardiothoracic ratio (CTR) in postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) and to assess a CTR threshold for the diagnosis of cardiomegaly based on the weight of the heart at autopsy. PMCT data of 170 deceased human adults were retrospectively evaluated by two blinded radiologists. The CTR was measured on axial computed tomography images and the actual cardiac weight was weighed at autopsy. Inter-rater reliability, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated to assess enlarged heart weight by CTR. The autopsy definition of cardiomegaly was based on normal values of the Zeek method (within a range of both, one or two SD) and the Smith method (within the given range). Intra-class correlation coefficients demonstrated excellent agreements (0.983) regarding CTR measurements. In 105/170 (62 %) cases the CTR in PMCT was >0.5, indicating enlarged heart weight, according to clinical references. The mean heart weight measured in autopsy was 405 ± 105 g. As a result, 114/170 (67 %) cases were interpreted as having enlarged heart weights according to the normal values of Zeek within one SD, while 97/170 (57 %) were within two SD. 100/170 (59 %) were assessed as enlarged according to Smith’s normal values. The sensitivity/specificity of the 0.5 cut-off of the CTR for the diagnosis of enlarged heart weight was 78/71 % (Zeek one SD), 74/55 % (Zeek two SD), and 76/59 % (Smith), respectively. The discriminative power between normal heart weight and cardiomegaly was 79, 73, and 74 % for the Zeek (1SD/2SD) and Smith methods respectively. Changing the CTR threshold to 0.57 resulted in a minimum specificity of 95 % for all three definitions of cardiomegaly. With a CTR threshold of 0.57, cardiomegaly can be identified with a very high specificity. This may be useful if PMCT is used by forensic pathologists as a screening tool for medico-legal autopsies.

Keywords

Forensic radiology Virtopsy Computed tomography Heart size Cardiomegaly Reliability Cardio thoracic ratio 

References

  1. 1.
    Danzer C. The cardiothoracic ratio. An index of cardiac enlargement. Am J Med Sci. 1919;157:513–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Michiue T, Ishikawa T, Sakoda S, Quan L, Li DR, Kamikodai Y, et al. Cardiothoracic ratio in postmortem chest radiography with regard to the cause of death. Leg Med (Tokyo). 2010;12(2):73–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zaman MJ, Sanders J, Crook AM, Feder G, Shipley M, Timmis A, et al. Cardiothoracic ratio within the “normal” range independently predicts mortality in patients undergoing coronary angiography. Heart. 2007;93(4):491–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis JL, Murphy ML, Blue LR, Ferris EJ. A comparison of objective measurements on the chest roentgenogram as screening tests for right or left ventricular hypertrophy. Am J Cardiol. 1986;58(7):658–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Murphy ML, Blue LR, Thenabadu PN, Phillips JR, Ferris EJ. The reliability of the routine chest roentgenogram for determination of heart size based on specific ventricular chamber evaluation at postmortem. Invest Radiol. 1985;20(1):21–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ungerleider HE, Gubner R. Evaluation of heart size measurements. Am Heart J. 1942;24:494–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raphael MJ. The normal heart. In: Sutton D, editor. Textbook of radiology and imaging. 6th ed. London: Church Livingstone; 1998. p. 541–62.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weissleder R, Wittenberg J, Harisinghani MG. Primer of diagnostic imaging. 5th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier/Mosby; 2011.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ernst ER, Shub C, Bailey KR, Brown LR, Redfield MM. Radiographic measurements of cardiac size as predictors of outcome in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. J Card Fail. 2001;7(1):13–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gollub MJ, Panu N, Delaney H, Sohn M, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, et al. Shall we report cardiomegaly at routine computed tomography of the chest? J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2012;36(1):67–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller JA, Hinrichs A, Contractor S, Doddakashi S. Cardiac dimensions derived from helical Ct: correlation with plain film radiography. Internet J Radiol. 2000. http://ispub.com/IJRA/1/1/8223. Accessed 30 Sept 2013.
  12. 12.
    Schlett CL, Kwait DC, Mahabadi AA, Bamberg F, O’Donnell CJ, Fox CS, et al. Simple area-based measurement for multidetector computed tomography to predict left ventricular size. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(7):1590–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robbins SL, Kumar V. The heart Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2010. p. 555–618.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zeek P. Heart Weight: the weight of the normal human heart. Arch Pathol. 1942;34:820–32.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith H. The relation of the weight of the heart to the weight of the body and the weight of the heart to age. Am Heart J. 1928;4:79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thali MJ, Jackowski C, Oesterhelweg L, Ross SG, Dirnhofer R. VIRTOPSY—the Swiss virtual autopsy approach. Leg Med (Tokyo). 2007;9(2):100–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levy AD, Harcke HT, Mallak CT. Postmortem imaging: MDCT features of postmortem change and decomposition. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2010;31(1):12–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brinkmann B. Harmonization of medico-legal autopsy rules. Committee of Ministers. Council of Europe. Int J Legal Med. 1999;113(1):1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Recommendation no. R (99) 3 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the harmonization of medico-legal autopsy rules. Forensic Sci Int. 2000;111(1–3):5–58.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baglivo M, Winklhofer S, Hatch G, Ampanozi G, Thali MJ, Ruder TD. The rise of forensic and postmortem radiology—analysis of the literature between the year 2000 and 2011. J Forensic Radiol Imaging. 2013;1(1):3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leth PM. Virtual autopsy. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2013;9(3):432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kabala JE, Wilde P. The measurement of heart size in the antero-posterior chest radiograph. Br J Radiol. 1987;60(718):981–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van der Jagt EJ, Smits HJ. Cardiac size in the supine chestfilm. Eur J Radiol. 1992;14(3):173–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hatch GM, Ampanozi G, Thali MJ, Ruder TD. Validation of left ventricular circumferential area as a surrogate for heart weight on postmortem computed tomography. J Forensic Radiol Imaging. 2013;1(3):98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bedford PJ, Routine CT. scan combined with preliminary examination as a new method in determining the need for autopsy. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2012;8(4):390–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shiotani S, Kohno M, Ohashi N, Yamazaki K, Nakayama H, Watanabe K, et al. Dilatation of the heart on postmortem computed tomography (PMCT): comparison with live CT. Radiat Med. 2003;21(1):29–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Winklhofer
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Nicole Berger
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas Ruder
    • 1
    • 3
  • Marina Elliott
    • 4
  • Paul Stolzmann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael Thali
    • 1
  • Hatem Alkadhi
    • 2
  • Garyfalia Ampanozi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forensic Medicine and Imaging, Institute of Forensic MedicineUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Hospital ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Institute of Diagnostic, Interventional, and Pediatric RadiologyUniversity Hospital BernBernSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of ArchaeologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations