COMPARATIVE STUDY
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Accuracy of automated attenuation-based 3-dimensional segmentation: in the analysis of left ventricular function compared with magnetic resonance imaging.

We evaluated attenuation-based 3-dimensional segmentation for the analysis of left ventricular function, using as our standard of reference magnetic resonance imaging and dual-source computed tomography with traditional short-axis planimetry.Twenty patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease were examined prospectively. In all magnetic resonance and computed tomographic datasets, global functional values were determined by 2-dimensional planimetry. Computed tomographic scans were further evaluated by automated 3-dimensional segmentation, and the results were compared by Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis.Agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and dual-source computed tomographic 2-dimensional planimetry was good for all values (end-diastolic volume, bias= -4.2, r=0.99; end-systolic volume, bias= -1.7, r=0.99, stroke-volume, bias= -2.4, r=0.98; ejection fraction, bias=0.26, r=0.94; and myocardial mass, bias= 2.5, r=0.90). By contrast, dual-source computed tomographic 3-dimensional segmentation overestimated end-diastolic volume (bias= -19.1, P <0.001), stroke-volume (bias= -16.9, P <0.001), and myocardial mass (bias= -34.4, P <0.001). Moreover, correlation with magnetic resonance imaging proved disappointing for ejection fraction (r=0.72). Results were similar in a direct comparison between dual-source computed tomographic 2-dimensional planimetry and 3-dimensional segmentation (end-diastolic volume, bias= -14.9, r=0.94; end-systolic volume, bias= -0.5, r=0.90; stroke volume, bias= -14.5, r=0.83; ejection fraction, bias= -2.8, r=0.74; and myocardial mass, bias= -36.8, r=0.79).Due to significant overestimation of volumes and poor correlation of ejection fraction with cine magnetic resonance imaging results, attenuation-based 3-dimensional segmentation compares unfavorably with traditional planimetry. Hence this method should be used with caution, and its time benefits should be weighed against its imprecision of functional analysis.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app