1. Patient-specific three-dimensional aortic arch modeling for automatic measurements: clinical validation in aortic coarctation
- Author
-
Dime Vitanovski, Giacomo Pongiglione, Aurelio Secinaro, Benedetta Leonardi, Giuseppe D'Avenio, Francesco Romeo, Mauro Grigioni, Marco A Perrone, and Allen D. Everett
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,Patient-Specific Modeling ,Aortic arch ,Aortic valve ,Adolescent ,Aorta, Thoracic ,Aortic Coarctation ,Machine Learning ,Automation ,Young Adult ,Imaging, Three-Dimensional ,Predictive Value of Tests ,medicine.artery ,Aortic sinus ,Humans ,Medicine ,Arch ,Child ,Retrospective Studies ,Aorta ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,business.industry ,Models, Cardiovascular ,Reproducibility of Results ,Magnetic resonance imaging ,General Medicine ,Patient specific ,Diaphragm (structural system) ,medicine.anatomical_structure ,cardiovascular system ,Female ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business ,Nuclear medicine ,Magnetic Resonance Angiography ,Software - Abstract
AIM A validated algorithm for automatic aortic arch measurements in aortic coarctation (CoA) patients could standardize procedures for clinical planning. METHODS The model-based assessment of the aortic arch anatomy consisted of three steps: first, machine-learning-based algorithms were trained on 212 three-dimensional magnetic resonance (MR) data to automatically allocate the aortic arch position in patients and segment the aortic arch; second, for each CoA patient (N = 33), the min/max aortic arch diameters were measured using the proposed software, manually and automatically, from noncontrast-enhanced three-dimensional steady-state free precession MRI sequence at five selected sites and compared ('internal comparison' referring to the same environment); third, moreover, the same min/max aortic arch diameters were compared, obtaining them independently, manually from common MR management software (MR Viewforum) and automatically from the model (external comparison). The measured sites were: aortic sinus, sino-tubular junction, mid-ascending aorta, transverse arch and thoracoabdominal aorta at the level of the diaphragm. RESULTS Manual and software-assisted measurements showed a good agreement: the difference between diameter measurements was not statistically significant (at α = 0.05), with only one exception, for both internal and external comparison. A high coefficient of correlation was attained for both maximum and minimum diameters in each site (for internal comparison, R > 0.73 for every site, with P
- Published
- 2020