Comparison of MRI, 64-slice MDCT and DSCT in assessing functional cardiac parameters of a moving heart phantom

Abstract

To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) and dual-source computed tomography (DSCT) in assessing global function parameters using a moving heart phantom. A moving heart phantom with known volumes (215–258 ml) moving at 50–100 beats per minute was examined by three different imaging modalities using clinically implemented scanning protocols. End-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were calculated by two experienced observers using dedicated post-processing tools. Ejection fraction (EF) and cardiac output (CO) were calculated and mutually compared using Bland-Altman plots. MRI underestimated the ejection EF by 16.1% with a Bland-Altman interval (B-A) of [-4.35 (-2.48) -0.60]. Sixty-four-slice MDCT overestimated the EF by 2.6% with a relatively wide B-A interval of [-3.40 (0.40) 4.20]. DSCT deviated the least from the known phantom volumes, underestimating the volumes by 0.8% with a B-A interval of [-1.17 (-0.13) 0.91]. CO analysis showed similar results. Furthermore, a good correlation was found between DSCT and MRI for EF and CO results. MRI systematically underestimates functional cardiac parameters, ejection fraction and cardiac output of a moving heart phantom. Sixty-four-slice MDCT underestimates or overestimates these functional parameters depending on the heart rate because of limited spatial resolution. DSCT deviates the least from these functional parameters compared to MRI, EBT and 64-slice MDCT.

Semiautomatic three-dimensional CT ventricular volumetry in patients with congenital heart disease: agreement between two methods with different user interaction

“…In this study, 3D cardiac CT data were used for ventricular volumetry rather than 2D cardiac MRI data in order to take advantage of a 3D threshold-based segmentation approach. 3D cardiac CT data were frequently downgraded to reformatted 2D data in previous studies [1,[6][7][8][21][22][23]. Compared with MRI ventricular volumetry, CT ventricular volumetry tends to overestimate ventricular volumes [20,23].…”

The reliability of automatic measurement of left ventricular function with dual-source computed tomography datasets

“…Furthermore, spatial resolution obtained with contemporary CT techniques surpasses spatial resolution of MRI acquisitions. A recent phantom study, comparing functional assessment with MRI and DSCT, showed that DSCT measurements deviated less from the real phantom volumes than MRI measurements [12]. MRI structurally overestimated EDV and ESV, resulting in a systemetic underestimation of LVEF.…”

“…A reliable measurement of LV functional parameters with MDCT compared with other known non-invasive techniques, including the reference standard provided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), was shown previously [9][10][11]. A recent phantom study comparing functional assessment with MRI and DSCT actually showed that DSCT measurements deviated less from the real phantom volumes than MRI measurements [12].…”

Correlation of coronary artery stenosis evaluation with left heart structure and function by multi-slice computed tomography

“…With the continuous improvement of time and spatial resolution in MSCT, multi-slice spiral CT coronary artery angiography (MSCTCA) could be used for the evaluation of coronary arterial stenosis, and the original data could also be used for a one-stop cardiac function determination. Studies have shown that 64-layer SCTCA has high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of coronary artery stenosis, and its results for cardiac function parameters were found to be highly correlated with the gold standard cMRI (Annuar et al, 2008;Groen et al, 2009;Zhang et al, 2009;Ito et al, 2010). In the present study, 128-layer SCTCA was used, along with retrospective ECG gating techniques (Mollet et al, 2005;Lu et al, 2008), to continuously scan several cardiac cycles, and the real-time dynamic 4-D raw image data of the systolic and diastolic ends, namely the "time-space" periods, were analyzed for the one-stop noninvasive evaluation of coronary artery stenosis, left ventricular structure and systolic function (Ko et al, 2010;Takx et al, 2012).…”