Why the study?
Does automated contour detection software on 16-MDCT accurately quantify left ventricular parameters compared to manual tracing and MRI?
Does automated contour detection software on 16-MDCT accurately quantify left ventricular parameters compared to manual tracing and MRI?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative study demonstrates reliable left ventricular ejection fraction measurement using automated 16-MDCT software in cardiac patients, suggesting accurate functional assessment.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to quantify left ventricular function and mass derived from retrospectively ECG-gated 16-MDCT coronary angiography data sets using a new analysis software based on automatic contour detection in comparison to corresponding standard of reference measurements acquired with MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Multiplanar reformations in the short-axis orientation were calculated from axial contrast-enhanced CT images in 18 patients (men, 15; women, three; age range, 38-70 years; mean, 57.4 +/- 10.2 [SD] years) who were referred for CT coronary angiography. End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), ejection fraction (EF), and left ventricular mass (LVM) were analyzed with a recently developed imaging software using an automated contour detection algorithm of left ventricular endo- and epicardial contours and by manual tracing. The data were compared with similar measurements on MRI as the standard of reference. RESULTS: EDV, ESV, EF, and LVM derived from an automated contour detection algorithm were not statistically significantly different from manual tracing (CT(auto) vs CT(manual): EDV = 137.1 +/- 45.7 mL vs 134.2 +/- 39.9 mL, ESV = 58.8 +/- 34.2 mL vs 58.1 +/-30.1 mL, EF = 59.2% +/- 13.7% vs 58.1% +/- 12.0%, LVM = 130.9 +/- 29.1 g vs 133.7 +/- 33.2 g; p > 0.05). However, EDV (118.7 +/- 43.6 mL), ESV (50.1 +/- 33.5 mL), and LVM (142.8 +/-38.4 g) as calculated on MR data sets were statistically significantly different from those calculated on CT (p < 0.05), whereas MRI-based EF (59.9% +/- 14.4%) did not differ statistically significantly from those based on both CT algorithms (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Automatic and manual analysis of data acquired during CT coronary angiography using a 16-MDCT scanner allows a reliable assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction and a rough estimation of left ventricular volumes and mass.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schlosser et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: