Key result
The automated LV-METRIC algorithm quantified LVEF within 1 point of manual tracing (Delta 0.6 ± 2.3%, P<0.05) and reduced processing time 14-fold (22 seconds vs 4:59 minutes, P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does the automated LV-METRIC algorithm accurately and rapidly quantify LV volumes and LVEF compared to manual tracing in patients undergoing cine-CMR?
Observational (n=151)
Does the automated LV-METRIC algorithm accurately and rapidly quantify LV volumes and LVEF compared to manual tracing in patients undergoing cine-CMR?
Effect estimate: Delta 0.6%
p-value: p=< 0.05
The automated LV-METRIC algorithm provides rapid and accurate quantification of LV volumes and ejection fraction from CMR, significantly reducing processing time compared to manual tracing.
May support rapid automated LVEF quantification on CMR; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of a novel automated left ventricle (LV) segmentation algorithm (LV-METRIC) that involves no geometric assumptions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LV-METRIC and manual tracing (MT) were used independently to quantify LV volumes and LVEF (ejection fraction) for 151 consecutive patients who underwent cine-CMR (steady-state free precession). Phase contrast imaging was used to independently measure stroke volume. RESULTS: LV-METRIC was successful in all cases. Mean LVEF was within 1 point of MT (Delta 0.6 +/- 2.3%, P < 0.05), with smaller differences among patients with (0.5 +/- 2.5%) versus those without (0.9 +/- 2.3%; P = 0.01) advanced systolic dysfunction (LVEF <or= 35% by MT). LV volumes by LV-METRIC were slightly smaller than MT during end-diastole (3.9 +/- 6.8 mL, P < 0.001) and end-systole (1.4 +/- 5.5 mL, P < 0.01). Mean processing time was 22 +/- 13 seconds for LV-METRIC and 4:59 +/- 1:56 minutes for MT (P < 0.001). Processing time correlated with LV blood volume by MT (r = 0.43) and LV-METRIC (r = 0.55), but slope was 10-fold steeper for MT (0.02 vs. 0.001), indicating greater proportionate time increases in relation to chamber dilation. Compared to stroke volume by phase contrast, LV-METRIC yielded smaller differences (0.3 +/- 18.3 mL) than MT (2.5 +/- 17.2 mL; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among a broad series of consecutive patients undergoing CMR, automated LVEF by LV-METRIC was within 1 point of MT with processing time reduced 14-fold. Stroke volume by LV-METRIC yielded improved agreement with an independent standard of phase contrast imaging.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Codella et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing cine-CMR (n=151). LV-METRIC automated segmentation algorithm vs. Manual tracing (MT) was evaluated on Difference in LVEF (Delta 0.6%, p=< 0.05). The automated LV-METRIC algorithm quantified LVEF within 1 point of manual tracing (Delta 0.6 ± 2.3%, P<0.05) and reduced processing time 14-fold (22 seconds vs 4:59 minutes, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: