Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-05-2012 | Cardiac

Left and right ventricle assessment with Cardiac CT: validation study vs. Cardiac MR

Authors: Erica Maffei, Giancarlo Messalli, Chiara Martini, Koen Nieman, Onofrio Catalano, Alexia Rossi, Sara Seitun, Andrea I Guaricci, Carlo Tedeschi, Nico R. Mollet, Filippo Cademartiri

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 5/2012

Abstract

Objectives

To compare Magnetic Resonance (MR) and Computed Tomography (CT) for the assessment of left (LV) and right (RV) ventricular functional parameters.

Methods

Seventy nine patients underwent both Cardiac CT and Cardiac MR. Images were acquired using short axis (SAX) reconstructions for CT and 2D cine b-SSFP (balanced-steady state free precession) SAX sequence for MR, and evaluated using dedicated software.

Results

CT and MR images showed good agreement: LV EF (Ejection Fraction) (52 ± 14% for CT vs. 52 ± 14% for MR; r = 0.73; p > 0.05); RV EF (47 ± 12% for CT vs. 47 ± 12% for MR; r = 0.74; p > 0.05); LV EDV (End Diastolic Volume) (74 ± 21 ml/m² for CT vs. 76 ± 25 ml/m² for MR; r = 0.59; p > 0.05); RV EDV (84 ± 25 ml/m² for CT vs. 80 ± 23 ml/m² for MR; r = 0.58; p > 0.05); LV ESV (End Systolic Volume)(37 ± 19 ml/m² for CT vs. 38 ± 23 ml/m² for MR; r = 0.76; p > 0.05); RV ESV (46 ± 21 ml/m² for CT vs. 43 ± 18 ml/m² for MR; r = 0.70; p > 0.05). Intra- and inter-observer variability were good, and the performance of CT was maintained for different EF subgroups.

Conclusions

Cardiac CT provides accurate and reproducible LV and RV volume parameters compared with MR, and can be considered as a reliable alternative for patients who are not suitable to undergo MR.

Key Points

• Cardiac-CT is able to provide Left and Right Ventricular function.

• Cardiac-CT is accurate as MR for LV and RV volume assessment.

• Cardiac-CT can provide accurate evaluation of coronary arteries and LV and RV function.

Available only for authorised users

Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Moyé LA et al (1992) Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction: results of the survival and ventricular enlargement trial. N Engl J Med 327:669–677PubMedCrossRef

Moise A, Bourassa MG, Theroux P et al (1985) Prognostic significance of progression of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 55:941–946PubMedCrossRef

Emond M, Mock MB, Davis KB et al (1994) Long-term survival of medically treated patients in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) registry. Circulation 90:2645–2657PubMed

Juergens KU, Fischbach R (2006) Left ventricular function studied with MDCT. Eur Radiol 16:342–357PubMedCrossRef

de Feyter PJ, van Eenige MJ, Dighton DH et al (1982) Prognostic value of exercise testing, coronary angiography and left ventriculography 6–8 weeks after myocardial infarction. Circulation 66:527–536PubMedCrossRef

Taylor GJ, Humphries JO, Mellits ED et al (1980) Predictors of clinical course, coronary anatomy and left ventricular function after recovery from acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 62:960–970PubMed

White HD, Norris RM, Brown MA et al (1987) Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction. Circulation 76:44–51PubMedCrossRef

Peshock RM, Willett DL, Sayad DE et al (1996) Quantitative MR imaging of the heart. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 4:287–305PubMed

Rathi VK, Biedermann RW (2004) Imaging of ventricular function by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Curr Cardiol Rep 6:55–61PubMedCrossRef

10.

Alfakih K, Plein S, Thiele H et al (2003) Normal human left and right ventricular dimensions for MRI as assessed by turbo gradient echo and steady-state free precession imaging sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging 17:323–329PubMedCrossRef

11.

Thiele H, Nagel E, Paetsch I et al (2001) Functional cardiac MR imaging with steady-state free precession (SSFP) significantly improves endocardial border delineation without contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 14:362–367PubMedCrossRef

12.

Barkhausen J, Ruehm SG, Goyen M et al (2001) MR evaluation of ventricular function: true fast imaging with steadystate precession versus fast low-angle shot cine MR imaging: feasibility study. Radiology 219:264–269PubMed

13.

Moon JCC, Lorenz CH, Francis JM et al (2002) Breath-hold FLASH and FISP cardiovascular MR imaging: left ventricular volume differences and reproducibility. Radiology 223:789–797PubMedCrossRef

14.

Palumbo A, Maffei E, Martini C et al (2010) Functional parameters of the left ventricle: comparison of cardiac MRI and cardiac CT in a large population. Radiol Med 115:702–713PubMedCrossRef

15.

Maffei E, Messalli G, Palumbo A et al (2010) Left ventricular ejection fraction: real-world comparison between cardiac computed tomography and echocardiography in a large population. Radiol Med 115:1015–1027PubMedCrossRef

16.

Lembcke A, Dohmen PM, Dewey M et al (2005) Multislice computed tomography for preoperative evaluation of right ventricular volumes and function: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Thorac Surg 79:1344–1351PubMedCrossRef

17.

Raman SV, Shah M, McCarthy B et al (2006) Multi-detector row cardiac computed tomography accurately quantifies right and left ventricular size and function compared with cardiac magnetic resonance. Am Heart J 151:736–744PubMedCrossRef

18.

Belge B, Coche E, Pasquet A et al (2006) Accurate estimation of global and regional cardiac function by retrospectively gated multidetector row computed tomography. Comparison with cine magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 16:1424–1433PubMedCrossRef

19.

Abbara S, Chowa JWB, Pena AJ et al (2008) Assessment of left ventricular function with 16- and 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 67:481–486PubMedCrossRef

20.

Bansal D, Singh RM, Sarkar M et al (2008) Assessment of left ventricular function: comparison of cardiac multidetector-row computed tomography with two-dimension standard echocardiography for assessment of left ventricular function. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 24:317–325PubMedCrossRef

21.

Heuschmid M, Rothfuss JK, Schroeder S et al (2006) Assessment of left ventricular myocardial function using 16-slice multidetector-row computed tomography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography. Eur Radiol 16:551–559PubMedCrossRef

22.

Sugeng L, Mor-Avi V, Weinert L et al (2006) Quantitative assessment of left ventricular size and function. side-by-side comparison of real-time three-dimensional echocardiography and computed tomography with magnetic resonance reference. Circulation 114:654–661PubMedCrossRef

23.

Wu Y, Tadamura E, Yamamuro M et al (2008) Estimation of global and regional cardiac function using 64-slice computed tomography: a comparison study with echocardiography, gated-SPECT and cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Int J Cardiol 128:69–76PubMedCrossRef

24.

Puesken M, Fischbach R, Wenker M et al (2008) Global left-ventricular function assessment using dual-source multidetector CT: effect of improved temporal resolution on ventricular volume measurement. Eur Radiol 18:2087–2094PubMedCrossRef

25.

Krishnam MS, Tomasian A, Iv M et al (2008) Left ventricular ejection fraction using 64-slice CT coronary angiography and new evaluation software: initial experience. Br J Radiol 81:450–455PubMedCrossRef

26.

Busch S, Johnson TRC, Wintersperger BJ et al (2008) Quantitative assessment of left ventricular function with dual-source CT in comparison to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: initial findings. Eur Radiol 18:570–575PubMedCrossRef

27.

Brodoefel H, Reimann A, Klumpp B et al (2007) Sixty-four-slice CT in the assessment of global and regional left ventricular function: Comparison with MRI in a porcine model of acute and subacute myocardial infarction. Eur Radiol 17:2948–2956PubMedCrossRef

28.

Caudron J, Fares J, Vivier PH et al (2011) Diagnostic accuracy and variability of three semi-quantitative methods for assessing right ventricular systolic function from cardiac MRI in patients with acquired heart disease. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2152-0

29.

Guo Y, Gao H, Zhang X et al (2010) Accuracy and reproducibility of assessing right ventricular function with 64-section multi-detector row CT Comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Cardiol 139:254–262PubMedCrossRef

30.

Plumhans C, Mühlenbruch G, Rapaee A et al (2008) Assessment of global right ventricular function on 64-MDCT compared with MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1358–1361PubMedCrossRef

31.

Koch K, Oellig F, Oberholzer K et al (2005) Assessment of right ventricular function by 16-detector-row CT: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 15:312–318PubMedCrossRef

32.

Müller M, Teige F, Schnapauff D et al (2009) Evaluation of right ventricular function with multidetector computed tomography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and analysis of inter- and intraobserver variability. Eur Radiol 19:278–289PubMedCrossRef

33.

Levine GN, Gomes AS, Arai AE et al (2007) Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiovascular devices: an American Heart Association scientific statement from the Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization. Circulation 116:2878–2891PubMedCrossRef

34.

Shellock FG, Spinazzi A (2008) MRI safety update: 2008, Part 2, screening patients for MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:12–21

35.

Cademartiri F, Romano M, Seitun S et al (2008) Prevalence and characteristics of coronary artery disease in a population with suspected ischaemic heart disease using CT coronary angiography: correlations with cardiovascular risk factors and clinical presentation. Radiol Med 113:363–372PubMedCrossRef

36.

Partridge JB, Anderson RH (2009) Left ventricular anatomy: its nomenclature, segmentation, and planes of imaging. Clin Anat 22:77–84PubMedCrossRef

37.

Hergan K, Schuster A, Frühwald J et al (2008) Comparison of left and right ventricular volume measurement using the Simpson’s method and the area length method. Eur J Radiol 65:270–278PubMedCrossRef

38.

Lorenz CH, Walker ES, Morgan VL et al (1999) Normal human right and left ventricular mass, systolic function, and gender differences by cine magnetic resonance imaging. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 1:7–21PubMedCrossRef

39.

Miller S, Simonetti OP, Carr J et al (2002) MR imaging of the heart with cine true fast imaging with steady-state precession: influence of spatial and temporal resolutions on left ventricular functional parameters. Radiology 223:263–269PubMedCrossRef

40.

van Geuns RJM, Baks T, Gronenschild EHBM et al (2006) Automatic quantitative left ventricular analysis of cine MR images by using three-dimensional information for contour detection. Radiology 240:215–221PubMedCrossRef

41.

Sievers B, Kirchberg S, Bakan A et al (2004) Impact of papillary muscles in ventricular volume and ejection fraction assessment by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 6:9–16PubMedCrossRef

42.

Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedCrossRef

43.

Grothues F, Moon JC, Bellenger NG et al (2004) Interstudy reproducibility of right ventricular volumes, function, and mass with cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Am Heart J 147:218–223PubMedCrossRef

44.

Sugeng L, Mor-Avi V, Weinert L et al (2010) Multimodality comparison of quantitative volumetric analysis of the right ventricle. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 3:10–18PubMedCrossRef

45.

Alkadhi H (2009) Radiation dose of cardiac CT–what is the evidence? Eur Radiol 19:1311–1315PubMedCrossRef

46.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M et al (2006) Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation 113:1305–1310PubMedCrossRef

47.

Achenbach S, Anders K, Kalender WA (2008) Dual-source cardiac computed tomography: image quality and dose considerations. Eur Radiol 18:1188–1198PubMedCrossRef

48.

Hausleiter J, Martinoff S, Hadamitzky M et al (2010) Image quality and radiation exposure with a low tube voltage protocol for coronary CT angiography results of the PROTECTION II Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 3:1113–1123PubMedCrossRef

49.

Alkadhi H, Leschka S (2011) Radiation dose of cardiac computed tomography – what has been achieved and what needs to be done. Eur Radiol 21:505–509PubMedCrossRef

Title: Left and right ventricle assessment with Cardiac CT: validation study vs. Cardiac MR
Authors: Erica Maffei
Giancarlo Messalli
Chiara Martini
Koen Nieman
Onofrio Catalano
Alexia Rossi
Sara Seitun
Andrea I Guaricci
Carlo Tedeschi
Nico R. Mollet
Filippo Cademartiri
Publication date: 01-05-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 5/2012
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2345-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Left and right ventricle assessment with Cardiac CT: validation study vs. Cardiac MR

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2012

Shear wave elastography of focal salivary gland lesions: preliminary experience in a routine head and neck US clinic

Clinical indications for musculoskeletal ultrasound: A Delphi-based consensus paper of the European society of musculoskeletal radiology

Sonoelastography techniques in the evaluation and diagnosis of parotid neoplasms

In vivo characterisation of soft tissue tumours by 1.5-T proton MR spectroscopy

Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible

Benefits of the quality assured double and arbitration reading of mammograms in the early diagnosis of breast cancer in symptomatic women