Article thumbnail

Comparison of (semi-)automatic and manually adjusted measurements of left ventricular function in dual source computed tomography using three different software tools

By G. J. de Jonge, P. M. A. van Ooijen, J. Overbosch, A. Litcheva Gueorguieva, M. C. Janssen-van der Weide and M. Oudkerk


To assess the accuracy of (semi-)automatic measurements of left ventricular (LV) functional parameters in cardiac dual-source computed tomography (DSCT) compared to manually adjusted measurements in three different workstations. Forty patients, who underwent cardiac DSCT, were included (31 men, mean age 58 ± 14 years). Multiphase reconstructions were made with ten series at every 10% of the RR-interval. LV function analysis was performed on three different, commercially available workstations. On all three workstations, end-systolic volume (ESV), end-diastolic volume (EDV), LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and myocardial mass (MM) were calculated as automatically as possible. With the same DSCT datasets, LV functional parameters were also calculated with as many manual adjustments as needed for accurate assessment for all three software tools. For both semi-automatic as well as manual methods, time needed for evaluation was recorded. Paired t-tests were employed to calculate differences in LV functional parameters. Repeated measurements were performed to determine intra-observer and inter-observer variability. (Semi-)automatic measurements revealed a good correlation with manually adjusted measurements for Vitrea (LVEF r = 0.93, EDV r = 0.94, ESV r = 0.98 and MM r = 0.94) and Aquarius (LVEF r = 0.96, EDV r = 0.94, ESV r = 0.98 and MM r = 0.96). Also, good correlation was obtained for Circulation, except for LVEF (LVEF r = 0.45, EDV r = 0.93, ESV r = 0.92 and MM r = 0.86). However, statistically significant differences were found between (semi-)automatically and manually adjusted measurements for LVEF (P < 0.05) and ESV (P < 0.001) in Vitrea, all LV functional parameters in Circulation (P < 0.001) and EDV, ESV and MM (<0.001) in Aquarius Workstation. (Semi-)automatic measurement of LV functional parameters is feasible, but significant differences were found for at least two different functional parameters in all three workstations. Therefore, expert manual correction is recommended at all times

Topics: Original Paper
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
OAI identifier:
Provided by: PubMed Central

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.

Suggested articles


  1. A et al (2006) Accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography: first experience in a high pre-test probability population without heart rate control.
  2. (2000). Age- and gender-specific differences in left and right ventricular cardiac function and mass determined by cine magnetic resonance imaging.
  3. (2002). Assessment of left ventricular mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance.
  4. (2008). Automated threshold-based 3D segmentation versus short-axis planimetry for assessment of global left ventricular function with dual-source MDCT.
  5. (2006). Automated vs. manual assessment of left ventricular function in cardiac multidetector row computed tomography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging.
  6. (2005). Cardiac functional analysis with multi-detector row CT and segmental reconstruction algorithm: comparison with echocardiography, SPECT, and MR imaging.
  7. (2006). Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive 64-slice CT coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris.
  8. (2006). Global left ventricular function in cardiac CT. Evaluation of an automated 3D region-growing segmentation algorithm.
  9. (2008). Left ventricular ejection fraction using 64-slice CT coronary angiography and new evaluation software: initial experience.
  10. (1987). Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction.
  11. (2006). Left ventricular papillary muscle mass: relationship to left ventricular mass and volumes by magnetic resonance imaging.
  12. Ocklenburg C et al (2009) Comparison of manual, semi- and fully automated heart segmentation for global left ventricular function in multidetector computed tomography.
  13. Pueyo JC et al (2008) Quantifi-cation of left ventricular function and mass in cardiac dualsource CT (DSCT) exams: comparison of manual and semiautomatic segmentation algorithms.
  14. (1993). Quantification of the left ventricular volumes and function with cine MR imaging: comparison of geometric models with three-dimensional data.
  15. (2008). Quantitative assessment of left ventricular function with dual-source CT in comparison to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: initial findings.
  16. Reimann A et al (2007) Dualsource CT with improved temporal resolution in assessment of left ventricular function: a pilot study.
  17. Shapiro MD et al (2008) Comprehensive assessment of myocardial perfusion defects, regional wall motion, and left ventricular function by using 64-section multidetector CT.
  18. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurements.
  19. (2005). Techniques and parameters for estimating radiation exposure and dose in cardiac computed tomography.
  20. (2009). The reliability of automatic measurement of left ventricular function with dual-source computed tomography datasets. Eur Radiol [epub ahead of print] 794 Int J Cardiovasc Imaging
  21. (2004). Time-effectiveness, observer-dependence, and accuracy of measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction using 4-channel MDCT. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 176:529–537
  22. (1986). Variable spectrum and prognostic implications of left and right ventricular ejection fraction in patients with and without clinical heart failure after acute myocardial infarction.
  23. (1979). Variables predictive of survival in patients with coronary disease: selection by univariate and multivariate analyses from the clinical, electrographic, exercise, arteriographic, and quantitative angiographic evaluations.