Abstract
Background: End-diastolic (ED), end-systolic (ES) left ventricular (LV) volumes and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) are important parameters for clinical decision making in heart disease. In clinical practice the frames from cine-angiography with the largest and smallest opacified LV areas are visually selected and the endocardial borders traced as LVED and LVES contours, respectively. We compared the accuracy of this visual method using two frames with a semi-automated computer assisted frame-by-frame analysis of the complete opacified cardiac cycles. Methods and results: In 17 patients a biplane LV cine-angiogram was obtained at 25 frames/s. Complete frame-by-frame analysis was performed using semi-automatic border detection software. Experienced independent observers visually selected and manually traced LVED and LVES in the so-called visually assessed two-frame method in a consensus meeting. LV volumes were calculated by the area–length method. Mean LVEDV, LVESV and LVEF were 133 ± 57, 56 ± 40 ml and 61 ± 16%, respectively, for the visually assessed two-frame method, and 117 ± 49, 53 ± 33 ml and 60 ± 13%, respectively, for the semi-automated computer assisted frame-by-frame method. LVEDV was significantly higher in the visually assessed two-frame method (p < 0.01). Linear regression analysis showed an excellent correlation between semi-automated computer-assisted frame-by-frame and the visually assessed two-frame LVEDV (y = 1.2x − 2.9; r 2 = 0.98), LVESV (y = 1.2x − 8.2; r 2 = 0.97) and good linear correlation for LVEF (y = 1.2x − 3.6; r 2 = 0.82). Bland–Altman analysis showed respectively a bias of 16.4, 2.4 ml and 5.0% with overall wide limits of agreement (−6.6 and 39.4 ml; −16.6 and 21.4 ml; −9.0% and 19.1%). Conclusion: Correlation is excellent when visually assessed LVED and LVES are compared with a semi-automated computer assisted frame-by-frame analysis. However, the visually assessed two-frame method tends to overestimate the volumes obtained by semi-automated computer-assisted frame-by-frame analysis, especially for LVEDV, indicating that visual selection will yield a higher LVEF, which may influence clinical decision making.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dodge HT, Sandler H, Ballew DW, Lord JD. The use of biplane angiocardiography for the measurement of left ventricular volume in man. Am Heart J 1960; 60: 762–776.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1(8476): 307–310.
Holmes DR Jr, Bove AA, Nishimura RA, et al. Comparison of monoplane and biplane assessment of regional left ventricular wall motion after thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1987; 59(8): 793–797.
Wynne J, Green LH, Mann T, Levin D, Grossman W. Estimation of left ventricular volumes in man from biplane cineangiograms filmed in oblique projections. Am J Cardiol 1978; 41(4): 726–732.
Beier J, Wellnhofer E, Oswald H, Fleck E. Accuracy and precision of angiographic volumetry methods for left and right ventricle. Int J Cardiol 1996; 53(2): 179–188.
van der Zwet PMJ, Koning G, Reiber JH. Left ventricular contour detection: a fully automated approach. Comp Cardiol 1992; 1: 359–362.
Kussmaul WG, Kleaveland JP, Zeevi GR, Hirshfeld JW Jr. Sources of subjective variability in the assessment of left ventricular regional wall motion from contrast ventriculograms. Am J Cardiol 1987; 60(1): 153–157.
Masquet C, Slama MS, Dibie A, Sheehan FH, Lienard J. Normal left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction: assessment with quantitative digital cardioangiography. Int J Card Imaging 1998; 14(1): 27–36.
Reiber JH, Viddeleer AR, Koning G, Schalij MJ, Lange PE. Left ventricular regression equations from single plane cine and digital X-ray ventriculograms revisited. Int J Card Imaging 1996; 12(2): 69–78.
Vas R, Diamond GA, Forrester JS, Whiting JS, Swan HJ. Computer enhancement of direct and venous-injected left ventricular contrast angiography. Am Heart J 1981; 102(4): 719–728.
O'Connor MK, Quigley PJ, Gearty GF. Digital subtraction angiography in the evaluation of left ventricular function and wall motion in man. Eur Heart J 1984; 5(8): 652–659.
Chapman CB, Baker O, Mitchell JH, Collier RG. Experiences with a cinefluorographic method for measuring ventricular volume. Am J Cardiol 1966; 18(1): 25–30.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Staal, E.M., de Heer, M., Jukema, J.W. et al. End-diastolic and end-systolic volume from the left ventricular angiogram: how accurate is visual frame selection?. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 19, 259–266 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025406614571
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025406614571