Left and right ventricle assessment with Cardiac CT: validation study vs. Cardiac MR

Objectives To compare Magnetic Resonance (MR) and Computed Tomography (CT) for the assessment of left (LV) and right (RV) ventricular functional parameters. Methods Seventy nine patients underwent both Cardiac CT and Cardiac MR. Images were acquired using short axis (SAX) reconstructions for CT and 2D cine b-SSFP (balanced- steady state free precession) SAX sequence for MR, and evaluated using dedicated software. Results CT and MR images showed good agreement: LV EF (Ejection Fraction) (52±14% for CT vs. 52±14% for MR; r0 0.73; p>0.05); RV EF (47±12% for CT vs. 47±12% for MR; r00.74; p>0.05); LV EDV (End Diastolic Volume) (74± 21 ml/m 2 for CT vs. 76±25 ml/m 2 for MR; r00.59; p>0.05); RV EDV (84±25 ml/m 2 for CT vs. 80±23 ml/m 2 for MR; r0 0.58; p>0.05); LV ESV (End Systolic Volume)(37±19 ml/m 2 for CT vs. 38±23 ml/m 2 for MR; r00.76; p>0.05); RV ESV (46±21 ml/m 2 for CT vs. 43±18 ml/m 2 for MR; r00.70; p>0.05). Intra- and inter-observer variability were good, and the performance of CT was maintained for different EF subgroups. Conclusions Cardiac CT provides accurate and reproducible LVand RV volume parameters compared with MR, and can be considered as a reliable alternative for patients who are not suitable to undergo MR. Key Points • Cardiac-CT is able to provide Left and Right Ventricular function. • Cardiac-CT is accurate as MR for LV and RV volume assessment. • Cardiac-CT can provide accurate evaluation of coronary arteries and LV and RV function

Current cardiac imaging techniques for detection of left ventricular mass

Estimation of left ventricular (LV) mass has both prognostic and therapeutic value independent of traditional risk factors. Unfortunately, LV mass evaluation has been underestimated in clinical practice. Assessment of LV mass can be performed by a number of imaging modalities. Despite inherent limitations, conventional echocardiography has fundamentally been established as most widely used diagnostic tool. 3-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) is now feasible, fast and accurate for LV mass evaluation. 3DE is also superior to conventional echocardiography in terms of LV mass assessment, especially in patients with abnormal LV geometry. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and cardiovascular computed tomography (CCT) are currently performed for LV mass assessment and also do not depend on cardiac geometry and display 3-dimensional data, as well. Therefore, CMR is being increasingly employed and is at the present standard of reference in the clinical setting. Although each method demonstrates advantages over another, there are also disadvantages to receive attention. Diagnostic accuracy of methods will also be increased with the introduction of more advanced systems. It is also likely that in the coming years new and more accurate diagnostic tests will become available. In particular, CMR and CCT have been intersecting hot topic between cardiology and radiology clinics. Thus, good communication and collaboration between two specialties is required for selection of an appropriate test