Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 6/2015

01-08-2015 | Original Paper

CT evaluation prior to transapical aortic valve replacement: semi-automatic versus manual image segmentation

Authors: Borek Foldyna, Camelia Jungert, Christian Luecke, Konstantin von Aspern, Sonja Boehmer-Lasthaus, Eva Maria Rueth, Matthias Grothoff, Stefan Nitzsche, Matthias Gutberlet, Friedrich Wilhelm Mohr, Lukas Lehmkuhl

Published in: The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging | Issue 6/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

To compare the performance of semi-automatic versus manual segmentation for ECG-triggered cardiovascular computed tomography (CT) examinations prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), with focus on the speed and precision of experienced versus inexperienced observers. The preoperative ECG-triggered CT data of 30 consecutive patients who were scheduled for TAVR were included. All datasets were separately evaluated by two radiologists with 1 and 5 years of experience (novice and expert, respectively) in cardiovascular CT using an evaluation software program with or without a semi-automatic TAVR workflow. The time expended for data loading and all segmentation steps required for the implantation planning were assessed. Inter-software as well as inter-observer reliability analysis was performed. The CT datasets were successfully evaluated, with mean duration between 520.4 ± 117.6 s and 693.2 ± 159.5 s. The three most time-consuming steps were the 3D volume rendering, the measurement of aorta diameter and the sizing of the aortic annulus. Using semi-automatic segmentation, a novice could evaluate CT data approximately 12.3 % faster than with manual segmentation, and an expert could evaluate CT data approximately 10.3 % faster [mean differences of 85.4 ± 83.8 s (p < 0.001) and 59.8 ± 101 s (p < 0.001), respectively]. The inter-software reliability for a novice was slightly lower than for an expert; however, the reliability for a novice and expert was excellent (ICC 0.92, 95 % CI 0.75–0.97/ICC 0.96, 95 % CI 0.91–0.98). Automatic aortic annulus detection failed in two patients (6.7 %). The study revealed excellent inter-software and inter-observer reliability, with a mean ICC of 0.95. TAVR evaluation can be accomplished significantly faster with semi-automatic rather than with manual segmentation, with comparable exactness, showing a benefit for experienced and inexperienced observers.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M et al (2010) Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 363:1597–1607PubMedCrossRef Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M et al (2010) Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 363:1597–1607PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR et al (2012) Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement. N Engl J Med 366:1686–1695PubMedCrossRef Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR et al (2012) Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement. N Engl J Med 366:1686–1695PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Holmes DR Jr, Mack MJ, Kaul S et al (2012) 2012 ACCF/AATS/SCAI/STS expert consensus document on transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 59:1200–1254PubMedCrossRef Holmes DR Jr, Mack MJ, Kaul S et al (2012) 2012 ACCF/AATS/SCAI/STS expert consensus document on transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 59:1200–1254PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Lehmkuhl L, Foldyna B, Haensig M et al (2013) Role of preprocedural computed tomography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. RoFo 184(10):941–949PubMedCrossRef Lehmkuhl L, Foldyna B, Haensig M et al (2013) Role of preprocedural computed tomography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. RoFo 184(10):941–949PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Wilson AB, Webb JG, Freeman M et al (2012) Computed tomography-based sizing recommendations for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valves: comparison with transesophageal echocardiography and rationale for implementation in a prospective trial. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 6:406–414CrossRef Wilson AB, Webb JG, Freeman M et al (2012) Computed tomography-based sizing recommendations for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valves: comparison with transesophageal echocardiography and rationale for implementation in a prospective trial. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 6:406–414CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Jilaihawi H, Kashif M, Fontana G et al (2012) Cross-sectional computed tomographic assessment improves accuracy of aortic annular sizing for transcatheter aortic valve replacement and reduces the incidence of paravalvular aortic regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 59:1275–1286PubMedCrossRef Jilaihawi H, Kashif M, Fontana G et al (2012) Cross-sectional computed tomographic assessment improves accuracy of aortic annular sizing for transcatheter aortic valve replacement and reduces the incidence of paravalvular aortic regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 59:1275–1286PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Lehmkuhl L, Foldyna B, Von Aspern K et al (2013) Inter-individual variance and cardiac cycle dependency of aortic root dimensions and shape as assessed by ECG-gated multi-slice computed tomography in patients with severe aortic stenosis prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation: is it crucial for correct sizing? Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 29(3):693–703PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Lehmkuhl L, Foldyna B, Von Aspern K et al (2013) Inter-individual variance and cardiac cycle dependency of aortic root dimensions and shape as assessed by ECG-gated multi-slice computed tomography in patients with severe aortic stenosis prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation: is it crucial for correct sizing? Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 29(3):693–703PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kempfert J, Van Linden A, Lehmkuhl L et al (2012) Aortic annulus sizing: echocardiographic vs. computed tomography derived measurements in comparison with direct surgical sizing. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezs064 Kempfert J, Van Linden A, Lehmkuhl L et al (2012) Aortic annulus sizing: echocardiographic vs. computed tomography derived measurements in comparison with direct surgical sizing. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. doi:10.​1093/​ejcts/​ezs064
9.
go back to reference Tzikas A, Schultz CJ, Piazza N et al (2011) Assessment of the aortic annulus by multislice computed tomography, contrast aortography, and trans-thoracic echocardiography in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 77:868–875PubMedCrossRef Tzikas A, Schultz CJ, Piazza N et al (2011) Assessment of the aortic annulus by multislice computed tomography, contrast aortography, and trans-thoracic echocardiography in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 77:868–875PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Binder RK, Webb JG, Willson AB, Urena M, Hansson NC, Norgaard BL et al (2013) The impact of integration of a multidetector computed tomography annulus area sizing algorithm on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a prospective, multicenter, controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 62:431–438PubMedCrossRef Binder RK, Webb JG, Willson AB, Urena M, Hansson NC, Norgaard BL et al (2013) The impact of integration of a multidetector computed tomography annulus area sizing algorithm on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a prospective, multicenter, controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 62:431–438PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Stabile E, Sorropago G, Cioppa A et al (2010) Acute left main obstructions following TAVI. EuroIntervention 6:100–105PubMedCrossRef Stabile E, Sorropago G, Cioppa A et al (2010) Acute left main obstructions following TAVI. EuroIntervention 6:100–105PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Gurvitch R, Webb JG, Yuan R et al (2011) Aortic annulus diameter determination by multidetector computed tomography: reproducibility, applicability, and implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol Cardiovasc Interv 4:1235–1245CrossRef Gurvitch R, Webb JG, Yuan R et al (2011) Aortic annulus diameter determination by multidetector computed tomography: reproducibility, applicability, and implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol Cardiovasc Interv 4:1235–1245CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Achenbach S, Delgado V, Hausleiter J, Schoenhagen P, Min JK, Leipsic JA (2012) SCCT expert consensus document on computed tomography imaging before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 6:366–380PubMedCrossRef Achenbach S, Delgado V, Hausleiter J, Schoenhagen P, Min JK, Leipsic JA (2012) SCCT expert consensus document on computed tomography imaging before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 6:366–380PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Achenbach S, Schuhbäck A, Min JK, Leipsic J (2013) Determination of the aortic annulus plane in CT imaging-a step-by-step approach. J Am Coll Cardiol Imaging 6:275–278CrossRef Achenbach S, Schuhbäck A, Min JK, Leipsic J (2013) Determination of the aortic annulus plane in CT imaging-a step-by-step approach. J Am Coll Cardiol Imaging 6:275–278CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Hutter A, Opitz A, Bleiziffer S et al (2010) Aortic annulus evaluation in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 76:1009–1019PubMedCrossRef Hutter A, Opitz A, Bleiziffer S et al (2010) Aortic annulus evaluation in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 76:1009–1019PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Lücke C, Foldyna B, Andres C et al (2014) Post-processing in cardiovascular computed tomography: performance of a client server solution versus a stand-alone solution. Fortschr Röntgenstr 186:1111–1121CrossRef Lücke C, Foldyna B, Andres C et al (2014) Post-processing in cardiovascular computed tomography: performance of a client server solution versus a stand-alone solution. Fortschr Röntgenstr 186:1111–1121CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRef Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160PubMedCrossRef Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Lou J, Obuchowski NA, Krishnaswamy A et al (2014) Manual, semiautomated, and fully automated measurement of the aortic annulus for planning of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR/TAVI): analysis of interchangeability. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 9(1):42–49 Lou J, Obuchowski NA, Krishnaswamy A et al (2014) Manual, semiautomated, and fully automated measurement of the aortic annulus for planning of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR/TAVI): analysis of interchangeability. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 9(1):42–49
21.
go back to reference Van Linden A, Kemfert J, Blumenstein J et al (2014) Manual versus automatic detection of aortic annulus plane in a computed tomographyscan for transcatheter aortic valve implantation screening. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 46(2):207–212PubMedCrossRef Van Linden A, Kemfert J, Blumenstein J et al (2014) Manual versus automatic detection of aortic annulus plane in a computed tomographyscan for transcatheter aortic valve implantation screening. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 46(2):207–212PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
CT evaluation prior to transapical aortic valve replacement: semi-automatic versus manual image segmentation
Authors
Borek Foldyna
Camelia Jungert
Christian Luecke
Konstantin von Aspern
Sonja Boehmer-Lasthaus
Eva Maria Rueth
Matthias Grothoff
Stefan Nitzsche
Matthias Gutberlet
Friedrich Wilhelm Mohr
Lukas Lehmkuhl
Publication date
01-08-2015
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 1569-5794
Electronic ISSN: 1875-8312
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-015-0662-6

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 6/2015 Go to the issue