2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcct.2016.08.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of a whole heart motion-correction algorithm on CT image quality and measurement reproducibility in Pre-TAVR aortic annulus evaluation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Each volume dataset in the series undergoes spatial deformation by the motion field. This allows the motion state to be mapped from the respective time to the central reference time, which is determined by the prescribed cardiac phase [29].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Each volume dataset in the series undergoes spatial deformation by the motion field. This allows the motion state to be mapped from the respective time to the central reference time, which is determined by the prescribed cardiac phase [29].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They subjectively and independently inspected the MPR images from the sinotubular junction to the left ventricular outflow tract of the datasets for motion artifacts at the aortic annulus level. To grade the image quality they used the 5-point Likert scale where 1 = very poor (motion artifacts resulting in poor visualization of the aortic valve anatomy, not evaluable), 2 = poor (degraded visualization of the aortic valve anatomy due to motion artifacts, not evaluable), 3 = fair (minor motion artifacts with clear delineation of the aortic valve anatomy), 4 = good (no motion artifacts with confident identification of the aortic root anatomy including the cusp nadirs and annular contours), and 5 = excellent (outstanding image quality with a high level of diagnostic certainty with regard to the aortic valve cusps, the leaflet nadirs, and the detection of the aortic annular contours) [29]. Interobserver disagreement was resolved by consensus.…”
Section: Qualitative Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Computed tomography data was acquired with 120 kV, 350 mA, 280 ms rotation, small spot size, and standard reconstruction kernel, with ASiR‐V = 50%; a single acquisition was used for analysis, no averaging was done. We then implemented a post processing motion‐correction algorithm (Snapshot Freeze; GE Healthcare) on the motion corrupted images to yield a set of corrected images. Analysis of the IMVV was performed on the corrected and uncorrected images.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Down-sampling and scaling factors were applied to reduce data size and speed up the algorithm. Consequently, Spatial and low contrast resolution were reduced, which may have impacted upon observer variability, making it difficult to differentiate between tissue borders (8,31). This may have impaired the ability of the algorithm to accurately identify and track specific anatomical landmarks.…”
Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%