J Korean Soc Magn Reson Med.  2013 Sep;17(3):200-206. 10.13104/jksmrm.2013.17.3.200.

Heart-Model-Based Automated Method for Left Ventricular Measurements in Cardiac MR: Comparison with Manual and Semi-automated Methods

• Chae SH
• Lee W
• Park EA
• Chung JW

• KMID: 2206918
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.13104/jksmrm.2013.17.3.200

Abstract

PURPOSE
To assess the effect of applying an automated heart model based measurements of left ventricle (LV) and compare with manual and semi-automated measurements at Cardiovascular MR Imaging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sixty-two patients who underwent cardiac 1.5T MR imaging were included. Steady state free precession cine images of 20 phases per cardiac cycle were obtained in short axis views and both 2-chamber and 4-chamber views. Epicardial and endocardial contours were drawn in manual, automated, and semi-automated ways. Based on these acquired contour sets, the end-diastolic (ED) and end-systolic (ES) volumes, ejection fraction (EF), systolic volume (SV) and LV mass were calculated and compared.
RESULTS
In EDV and ESV, the differences among three measurement methods were not statistically significant (P = .399 and .145, respectively). However, in EF, SV, and LV mass, the differences were statistically significant (P=.001, <001, <001, respectively) and the measured value from automated method tend to be consistently higher than the values from other two methods.
CONCLUSION
An automatic heart model-based method grossly overestimate EF, SV and LV mass compared with manual or semi-automated methods. Even though the method saves a considerable amount of efforts, further manual adjustment should be considered in critical clinical cases.

Keyword

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); Heart; Volumetery

MeSH Terms

Axis, Cervical Vertebra
Heart
Heart Ventricles
Humans

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Sample illustration of contour sets of a 68-year-old male patient who had ischemic heart disease. Each contour sets were generated by manual (a), automated (b), and semi automated methods by Argus 4D. Note that the automated methods have the tendency to draw endocardial border to exclude more portion of papillary muscle in the LV cavity than other two methods do.

• 

  Fig. 2 Graphical presentation of LV parameter values of (a) Ejection fraction, (b) End-diastolic volume, (c) End-systolic volume, (d) Stroke volume, and (e) Left ventricular mass, using manual, automated and semi-automated methods, respectively. Note that the automated methods consistently overestimated EF, SV and LV mass compared with the other two methods.

Reference

1. Levy D, Garrison RJ, Savage DD, Kannel WB, Castelli WP. Prognostic implications of echocardiographically determined left ventricular mass in the Framingham Heart Study. N Engl J Med. 1990; 322:1561–1566.

2. Kondo C, Caputo GR, Semelka R, Foster E, Shimakawa A, Higgins CB. Right and left ventricular stroke volume measurements with velocity-encoded cine MR imaging: in vitro and in vivo validation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991; 157:9–16.

3. Koren MJ, Devereux RB, Casale PN, Savage DD, Laragh JH. Relation of left ventricular mass and geometry to morbidity and mortality in uncomplicated essential hypertension. Ann Intern Med. 1991; 114:345–352.

4. Rerkpattanapipat P, Mazur W, Link KM, Hundley WG. Assessment of cardiac function with MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2003; 11:67.

5. Francois CJ, Fieno DS, Shors SM, Finn JP. Left ventricular mass: manual and automatic segmentation of true fisp and flash cine MR images in dogs and pigs. Radiology. 2004; 230:389–395.

6. Alfakih K, Reid S, Jones T, Sivananthan M. Assessment of ventricular function and mass by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2004; 14:1813–1822.

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

8. Bloomgarden DC, Fayad ZA, Ferrari VA, Chin B, Sutton MG, Axel L. Global cardiac function using fast breath-hold MRI: validation of new acquisition and analysis techniques. Magn Reson Med. 1997; 37:683–692.

9. Childs H, Ma L, Ma M, et al. Comparison of long and short axis quantification of left ventricular volume parameters by cardiovascular magnetic resonance, with ex-vivo validation. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011; 13:40.

10. Hautvast GL, Salton CJ, Chuang ML, Breeuwer M, O'Donnell CJ, Manning WJ. Accurate computer-aided quantification of left ventricular parameters: experience in 1555 cardiac magnetic resonance studies from the framingham heart study. Magn Reson Med. 2012; 67:1478–1486.

11. Katz J, Milliken MC, Stray-Gundersen J, et al. Estimation of human myocardial mass with MR imaging. Radiology. 1988; 169:495–498.

12. Shapiro MD, Nieman K, Nasir K, et al. Utility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance to predict left ventricular recovery after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients presenting with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 100:211–216.

13. Dulce MC, Mostbeck GH, Friese KK, Caputo GR, Higgins CB. Quantification of the left ventricular volumes and function with cine MR imaging: comparison of geometric models with three-dimensional data. Radiology. 1993; 188:371–376.

14. Vogel-Claussen J, Finn JP, Gomes AS, et al. Left ventricular papillary muscle mass: relationship to left ventricular mass and volumes by magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006; 30:426–432.