Search

To assess the accuracy of automatic extraction of the left ventricular inner contour on contrast-enhanced ultrafast cine magnetic resonance (MR) images, we compared the values obtained by this method with those obtained using intravenous digital subtraction left ventriculography. High-quality single breath-hold contrast-enhanced ultrafast cine MR images were obtained in all cardiac phases on horizontal and vertical long axis sections of the left ventricle. For ultrafast cine MR imaging, a phase-rewind gradient-echo (rewind-SMASH) sequence was used. Automatic extraction of the left ventricular inner contour on contrast-enhanced ultrafast cine MR images was performed in all cardiac phases. High-quality left ventricular images of the horizontal long axis section were obtained in 127 of 160 patients (79%). The automatic extraction of the left ventricular contour was easily performed on high-quality images with very short processing time (4 s/frame). The values for left ventricular volumes obtained with the automatic extraction method on contrast-enhanced ultrafast cine MR imaging were correlated well with those obtained with the manual extraction method and IV-DSA in high quality cardiac images. The biplane modified Simpson's method using automatic extraction is an accurate and highly reproducible method for evaluating left ventricular volumes.

Previous studies have advocated quantifying pulmonary regurgitation (PR) by using PR volume (PRV) instead of commonly used PR fraction (PRF). However, physicians are not familiar with the use of PRV in clinical practice. The ratio of right ventricle (RV) volume to left ventricle volume (RV/LV) may better reflect the impact of PR on the heart than RV end-diastolic volume (RVEDV) alone. We aimed to compare the impact of PRV and PRF on RV size expressed as either the RV/LV ratio or RVEDV (mL/m(2)).Consecutive patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot were included (n=53). PRV, PRF and ventricular volumes were measured with the use of cardiac magnetic resonance.RVEDV was more closely correlated with PRV when compared with PRF (r=0.686, p0.0001, and r=0.430, p=0.0014, respectively). On the other hand, both PRV and PRF showed a good correlation with the RV/LV ratio (r=0.691, p0.0001, and r=0.685, p0.0001, respectively). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that both measures of PR had similar ability to predict severe RV dilatation when the RV/LV ratio-based criterion was used, namely the RV/LV ratio2.0 [area under the curve (AUC)(PRV)=0.770 vs AUC(PRF)=0.777, p=0.86]. Conversely, with the use of the RVEDV-based criterion (170mL/m(2)), PRV proved to be superior over PRF (AUC(PRV)=0.770 vs AUC(PRF)=0.656, p=0.0028].PRV and PRF have similar significance as measures of PR when the RV/LV ratio is used instead of RVEDV. The RV/LV ratio is a universal marker of RV dilatation independent of the method of PR quantification applied (PRF vs PRV).

Purpose: To compare ventricular volume measurement using a volumetric approach in the three standard cardiac planes and ventricular volume estimation by a geometrical model, the Area–Length method (ALM). Materials and methods: Fifty-six healthy volunteers were examined (27 males, 29 females) on a 1.5 T MR-unit with ECG-triggered steady state free precision (SSFP) Cine-MR sequences and parallel image acquisition. Multiple slices in standardized planes including the short-axis view (sa), 4-chamber view (4ch), left and right 2-chamber views (2ch) were used to cover the whole heart. End-systolic and end-diastolic ventricular volumes (EDV, ESV), stroke volume (SV), and ejection fraction (EF) were calculated with Simpson’s rule in all planes and with ALM in the 2ch and 4ch planes. Global function parameters measured in the sa plane were compared with those obtained in the other imaging planes. Results: A very good correlation is observed when comparing functional parameters calculated with Simpson’s rule in all imaging planes: for instance, the mean EDV/ESV of the left and right ventricle of the female population group measured in sa, 4ch, and 2ch: left ventricle EDV/ESV 114.3/44.4, 120.9/46.5, and 117.7/45.3 ml; right ventricle EDV/ESV 106.6/46.0, 101.2/41.1, and 103.5/43.0 ml. Functional parameters of the left ventricle calculated with ALM in 2ch and 4ch correlate to parameters obtained in sa with Simpson’s rule in the range of 5–10%: for instance, the EDV/ESV of the left ventricle of the male population group measured in the sa, 4ch, and 2ch: 160.3/63.5, 163.1/59.0, and 167.0/65.7 ml. Functional parameters of the right ventricle measured with ALM in 4ch are 40–50% lower and calculated in 2ch almost double as high as compared with the parameters obtained in sa with Simpson’s rule: for instance, male right ventricular EDV/ESV measured in sa, 4ch, and 2ch: 153.4/68.1, 97.5/34.5, and 280.2/123.2 ml. The EF correlates for all imaging planes measured with the Simpson’s rule in both ventricles and using ALM in the left ventricle except for males with an overestimation of less than 6%. The EF of the right ventricle is calculated higher using ALM in 4ch and 2ch compared to the EF calculated in sa: female/male EF of the right ventricle measured in the sa, 4ch, and 2ch: 56.8/55.7, 66.0/65.0, and 60.0/57.0%. Conclusion: In the setting of healthy volunteers the ALM method should not be used in 2ch and 4ch planes of the right ventricle because of lacking correlation of global functional parameters compared to those obtained in the sa plane. Using Simpson’s rule functional parameters correlate well to each other in the different imaging planes. © 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

A total of 34 patients underwent both gated SPECT perfusion imaging and echocardiography, with each test blinded to the other. Wall motion analysis, calculation of ejection fraction and ventricular volume were obtained by each technique. A close correlation was observed between the ejection fractions calculated by each method (r=0.79). There was a less close relationship between the left ventricular volumes calculated by each method (r=0.61) this is probably due to the errors which result from geometric assumptions for each technique. Wall motion analysis revealed a good level of agreement between each method with no significant discrepancies between the techniques.