These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Multi-detector row CT of left ventricular function with dedicated analysis software versus MR imaging: initial experience.
    Author: Juergens KU, Grude M, Maintz D, Fallenberg EM, Wichter T, Heindel W, Fischbach R.
    Journal: Radiology; 2004 Feb; 230(2):403-10. PubMed ID: 14668428.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To determine left ventricular (LV) volumetric and functional parameters from retrospectively electrocardiographically gated multi-detector row computed tomography (CT) by using semiautomated analysis software and to correlate results with those of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 30 patients (mean age, 59.2 years +/- 7.1 [SD]) known to have or suspected of having coronary artery disease, four-channel multi-detector row CT was performed with standard technique, and diastolic and systolic image reconstructions were generated. With commercially available analysis software capable of semiautomated contour detection, end diastolic and end systolic LV volumes were determined from short-axis secondary CT reformations. Steady-state free-precession cine MR images were acquired in short-axis orientation within 48 hours and analyzed by using dedicated software. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to calculate limits of agreement and systematic errors between CT and MR imaging. RESULTS: Mean end diastolic (138.8 mL +/- 31.9) and end systolic (53.9 mL +/- 21.2) LV volumes as determined with CT correlated well with MR imaging measurements (142.0 mL +/- 32.5 [r = 0.93] and 54.9 mL +/- 22.8 [r = 0.94], respectively [P <.001]). LV ejection fraction (61.6% +/- 10.6 for CT vs 62.3% +/- 10.1 for MR imaging; r = 0.89) and stroke volume (84.6 mL +/- 20.9 for CT vs 86.9 mL +/- 21.5 for MR imaging; r = 0.88) also showed good correlation (P <.001). Bland-Altman analysis showed acceptable limits of agreement (+/-9.8% for ejection fraction) without systematic errors. CONCLUSION: In selected patients, semiautomated analysis software enables LV volumetric and functional analysis based on multi-detector row CT data sets, the results of which correlate well with MR imaging findings.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]