Why the study?
Does a fully automatic algorithm accurately calculate left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from MDCT compared to Simpson's method and left ventriculography in patients with acute chest pain?
Does a fully automatic algorithm accurately calculate left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from MDCT compared to Simpson's method and left ventriculography in patients with acute chest pain?
A fully automated model-based algorithm provides accurate and clinically relevant calculations of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction from MDCT in patients with acute chest pain.
Automated MDCT LVEF agrees closely with reference standards in acute chest pain; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate feasibility and accuracy of a fully automatic algorithm (FAA) for calculating left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction (LVEF) from multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) studies versus a previously validated method based on Simpson's method serving as our reference standard (RS), and left ventriculography (LVG), in patients with acute chest pain (ACP). METHODS: 23 patients admitted with ACP underwent ECG-gated MDCT, as well as LVG during their hospitalization. MDCT based end-diastolic, end-systolic and stroke volumes (EDV, ESV, SV) and LVEF were calculated using the RS and the FAA. RESULTS: One patient was excluded after FAA failure to detect contours. In the remaining 22 patients, mean+/-SD LVEF measurements were RS 61+/-11%, FAA 59+/-11% (r = 0.91 versus RS), LVG 57+/-16% (r = 0.6 versus RS). In comparison to RS, FAA overestimated EDV by 10.1+/-8.5 ml, ESV by 7.3+/-6.4 ml and SV by 3.6+/-8.6 ml, and underestimated LVEF measurements by 2.7+/-4.6%, related to contour smoothing. LVEF by FAA was within 8% of RS for all patients except one. In contrast, LVG differed significantly from RS. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated FAA obtained accurate, clinically relevant results for left ventricular volumes and LVEF relative to the RS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghersin et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: