Advertisement

Precision of regional wall motion estimates from ultra-low-dose cardiac CT using SQUEEZ

  • Amir Pourmorteza
  • Noemie Keller
  • Richard Chen
  • Albert Lardo
  • Henry Halperin
  • Marcus Y. Chen
  • Elliot McVeigh
Original Paper

Abstract

Resting regional wall motion abnormality (RWMA) has significant prognostic value beyond the findings of computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography. Stretch quantification of endocardial engraved zones (SQUEEZ) has been proposed as a measure of regional cardiac function. The purpose of the work reported here was to determine the effect of lowering the radiation dose on the precision of automatic SQUEEZ assessments of RWMA. Chronic myocardial infarction was created by a 2-h occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery in 10 swine (heart rates 80–100, ejection fraction 25–57%). CT was performed 5–11 months post infarct using first-pass contrast enhanced segmented cardiac function scans on a 320-detector row scanner at 80 kVp/500 mA. Images were reconstructed at end diastole and end systole with both filtered back projection and using the “standard” adaptive iterative dose reduction (AIDR) algorithm. For each acquisition, 9 lower dose acquisitions were created. End systolic myocardial function maps were calculated using SQUEEZ for all noise levels and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between the left ventricle blood and myocardium was calculated as a measure of image quality. For acquisitions with CNR > 4, SQUEEZ could be estimated with a precision of ± 0.04 (p < 0.001) or 5.7% of its dynamic range. The difference between SQUEEZ values calculated from AIDR and FBP images was not statistically significant. Regional wall motion abnormality can be quantified with good precision from low dose acquisitions, using SQUEEZ, as long as the blood-myocardium CNR stays above 4.

Keywords

Myocardial function CT noise Wall motion abnormality Regional cardiac function SQUEEZ 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by National Institutes of Health (Grant Nos. R01-HL64795, R01-HL094610).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

AP and EM have a patent application for SQUEEZ (US 14/350,991). MYC receives institutional research support from Toshiba Medical Systems. Other authors did not report any conflicts.

References

  1. 1.
    Cury RC, Feuchtner GM, Batlle JC et al (2013) Triage of patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency department: implementation of coronary CT angiography in a large urban health care system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:57–65.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8808 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cury RC, Budoff M, Taylor AJ (2013) Coronary CT angiography versus standard of care for assessment of chest pain in the emergency department. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 7:79–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2013.01.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seneviratne SK, Truong QA, Bamberg F 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 3:375–383.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.109.892638 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schlett CL, Banerji D, Siegel E et al (2011) Prognostic value of CT angiography for major adverse cardiac events in patients with acute chest pain from the emergency department: 2-year outcomes of the ROMICAT trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 4:481–491.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2010.12.008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pourmorteza A, Schuleri KH, Herzka DA et al (2012) A new method for cardiac computed tomography regional function assessment: stretch quantifier for endocardial engraved zones (SQUEEZ). Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 5:243–250.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.111.970061 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pourmorteza A, Schuleri KH, Herzka DA et al (2012) Regional cardiac function assessment in 4D CT: comparison between SQUEEZ and ejection fraction. In: 2012 annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), pp 4966–4969.  https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2012.6347107
  7. 7.
    Pourmorteza A, Chen MY, van der Pals J et al (2016) Correlation of CT-based regional cardiac function (SQUEEZ) with myocardial strain calculated from tagged MRI: an experimental study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 32:817–823.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-015-0831-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Behar JM, Rajani R, Pourmorteza A et al (2017) Comprehensive use of cardiac computed tomography to guide left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy. Hear Rhythm.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.04.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Otani T, Al-Issa A, Pourmorteza A, McVeigh ER, Wada S, Ashikaga H (2016) A computational framework for personalized blood flow analysis in the human left atrium. Ann Biomed Eng 44:3284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hou Y, Ma Y, Fan W et al (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of low-dose 256-slice multi-detector coronary CT angiography using iterative reconstruction in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Eur Radiol 24:3–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2969-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hou Y, Xu S, Guo W et al (2012) The optimal dose reduction level using iterative reconstruction with prospective ECG-triggered coronary CTA using 256-slice MDCT. Eur J Radiol 81:3905–3911CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fan Y, Zamyatin AA, Nakanishi S (2012) Noise simulation for low-dose computed tomography. IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference (NSS/MIC), pp 3641–3643.  https://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2012.6551836
  13. 13.
    Angel E (Toshiba America Medical Systems I AIDR3D Whitepaper. http://medical.toshiba.com/downloads/aidr-3d-wp-aidr-3d
  14. 14.
    Lilliefors HW (1967) On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. J Am Stat Assoc 62:399–402.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1967.10482916 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Behar JM, Pourmorteza A, McVeigh E, Niederer S, Claridge S, Jackson T, Sohal M, Preston R, Carr-White G, Razavi R, Rajani R, CAR (2015) Cardiac computed tomography is a feasible imaging modality for pre procedural planning in patients undergoing upgrade from pacemakers to CRT. Europace 17:v10–v13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boas FE, Fleischmann D (2012) CT artifacts: causes and reduction techniques. Imaging Med 4:229–240.  https://doi.org/10.2217/iim.12.13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schuhbaeck A, Achenbach S, Layritz C et al (2013) Image quality of ultra-low radiation exposure coronary CT angiography with an effective dose < 0.1 mSv using high-pitch spiral acquisition and raw data-based iterative reconstruction. Eur Radiol 23:597–606.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2656-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halliburton SS, Abbara S, Chen MY et al (2011) SCCT guidelines on radiation dose and dose-optimization strategies in cardiovascular CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:198–224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2011.06.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Winship Cancer InsitituteEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Department of MedicineJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging Laboratory, Cardiopulmonary Branch, National Heart Lung and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  5. 5.Departments of Bioengineering, Medicine, and RadiologyUniversity of California San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations