BackgroundLate gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) using magnitude inversion recovery (IR) or phase sensitive inversion recovery (PSIR) has become clinical standard for assessment of myocardial infarction (MI). However, there is no clinical standard for quantification of MI even though multiple methods have been proposed. Simple thresholds have yielded varying results and advanced algorithms have only been validated in single center studies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop an automatic algorithm for MI quantification in IR and PSIR LGE images and to validate the new algorithm experimentally and compare it to expert delineations in multi-center, multi-vendor patient data.MethodsThe new automatic algorithm, EWA (Expectation Maximization, weighted intensity, a priori information), was implemented using an intensity threshold by Expectation Maximization (EM) and a weighted summation to account for partial volume effects.The EWA algorithm was validated in-vivo against triphenyltetrazolium-chloride (TTC) staining (n = 7 pigs with paired IR and PSIR images) and against ex-vivo high resolution T1-weighted images (n = 23 IR and n = 13 PSIR images). The EWA algorithm was also compared to expert delineation in 124 patients from multi-center, multi-vendor clinical trials 2–6 days following first time ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n = 124 IR and n = 49 PSIR images).ResultsInfarct size by the EWA algorithm in vivo in pigs showed a bias to ex-vivo TTC of −1 ± 4%LVM (R = 0.84) in IR and −2 ± 3%LVM (R = 0.92) in PSIR images and a bias to ex-vivo T1-weighted images of 0 ± 4%LVM (R = 0.94) in IR and 0 ± 5%LVM (R = 0.79) in PSIR images. In multi-center patient studies, infarct size by the EWA algorithm showed a bias to expert delineation of −2 ± 6 %LVM (R = 0.81) in IR images (n = 124) and 0 ± 5%LVM (R = 0.89) in PSIR images (n = 49).ConclusionsThe EWA algorithm was validated experimentally and in patient data with a low bias in both IR and PSIR LGE images. Thus, the use of EM and a weighted intensity as in the EWA algorithm, may serve as a clinical standard for the quantification of myocardial infarction in LGE CMR images.Clinical trial registrationCHILL-MI: NCT01379261. MITOCARE: NCT01374321.

Introduction. Manual delineation of the left ventricle is clinical standard for quantification of cardiovascular magnetic resonance images despite being time consuming and observer dependent. Previous automatic methods generally do not account for one major contributor to stroke volume, the long-axis motion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and validate an automatic algorithm for time-resolved segmentation covering the whole left ventricle, including basal slices affected by long-axis motion. Methods. Ninety subjects imaged with a cine balanced steady state free precession sequence were included in the study (training set n = 40, test set n = 50). Manual delineation was reference standard and second observer analysis was performed in a subset (n = 25). The automatic algorithm uses deformable model with expectation-maximization, followed by automatic removal of papillary muscles and detection of the outflow tract. Results. The mean differences between automatic segmentation and manual delineation were EDV −11 mL, ESV 1 mL, EF −3%, and LVM 4 g in the test set. Conclusions. The automatic LV segmentation algorithm reached accuracy comparable to interobserver for manual delineation, thereby bringing automatic segmentation one step closer to clinical routine. The algorithm and all images with manual delineations are available for benchmarking.

No abstract

BackgroundEfficacy of reperfusion therapy can be assessed as myocardial salvage index (MSI) by determining the size of myocardium at risk (MaR) and myocardial infarction (MI), (MSI = 1-MI/MaR). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) can be used to assess MI by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and MaR by either T2-weighted imaging or contrast enhanced SSFP (CE-SSFP). Automatic segmentation algorithms have been developed and validated for MI by LGE as well as for MaR by T2-weighted imaging. There are, however, no algorithms available for CE-SSFP. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and validate automatic segmentation of MaR in CE-SSFP.MethodsThe automatic algorithm applies surface coil intensity correction and classifies myocardial intensities by Expectation Maximization to define a MaR region based on a priori regional criteria, and infarct region from LGE. Automatic segmentation was validated against manual delineation by expert readers in 183 patients with reperfused acute MI from two multi-center randomized clinical trials (RCT) (CHILL-MI and MITOCARE) and against myocardial perfusion SPECT in an additional set (n = 16). Endocardial and epicardial borders were manually delineated at end-diastole and end-systole. Manual delineation of MaR was used as reference and inter-observer variability was assessed for both manual delineation and automatic segmentation of MaR in a subset of patients (n = 15). MaR was expressed as percent of left ventricular mass (%LVM) and analyzed by bias (mean ± standard deviation). Regional agreement was analyzed by Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) (mean ± standard deviation).ResultsMaR assessed by manual and automatic segmentation were 36 ± 10 % and 37 ± 11 %LVM respectively with bias 1 ± 6 %LVM and regional agreement DSC 0.85 ± 0.08 (n = 183). MaR assessed by SPECT and CE-SSFP automatic segmentation were 27 ± 10 %LVM and 29 ± 7 %LVM respectively with bias 2 ± 7 %LVM. Inter-observer variability was 0 ± 3 %LVM for manual delineation and -1 ± 2 %LVM for automatic segmentation.ConclusionsAutomatic segmentation of MaR in CE-SSFP was validated against manual delineation in multi-center, multi-vendor studies with low bias and high regional agreement. Bias and variability was similar to inter-observer variability of manual delineation and inter-observer variability was decreased by automatic segmentation. Thus, the proposed automatic segmentation can be used to reduce subjectivity in quantification of MaR in RCT.Clinical trial registrationNCT01379261.NCT01374321.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12880-016-0124-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.