Cargando…
Comparison of MRI, 64-slice MDCT and DSCT in assessing functional cardiac parameters of a moving heart phantom
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 wa...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer-Verlag
2008
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816236/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18953545 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1197-1 |
_version_ | 1782177083957444608 |
---|---|
author | Groen, J. M. van der Vleuten, P. A. Greuter, M. J. W. Zijlstra, F. Oudkerk, M. |
author_facet | Groen, J. M. van der Vleuten, P. A. Greuter, M. J. W. Zijlstra, F. Oudkerk, M. |
author_sort | Groen, J. M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2816236 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2008 |
publisher | Springer-Verlag |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-28162362010-02-13 Comparison of MRI, 64-slice MDCT and DSCT in assessing functional cardiac parameters of a moving heart phantom Groen, J. M. van der Vleuten, P. A. Greuter, M. J. W. Zijlstra, F. Oudkerk, M. Eur Radiol Cardiac 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. Springer-Verlag 2008-10-25 2009 /pmc/articles/PMC2816236/ /pubmed/18953545 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1197-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2008 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Cardiac Groen, J. M. van der Vleuten, P. A. Greuter, M. J. W. Zijlstra, F. Oudkerk, M. Comparison of MRI, 64-slice MDCT and DSCT in assessing functional cardiac parameters of a moving heart phantom |
title | Comparison of MRI, 64-slice MDCT and DSCT in assessing functional cardiac parameters of a moving heart phantom |
title_full | Comparison of MRI, 64-slice MDCT and DSCT in assessing functional cardiac parameters of a moving heart phantom |
title_fullStr | Comparison of MRI, 64-slice MDCT and DSCT in assessing functional cardiac parameters of a moving heart phantom |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of MRI, 64-slice MDCT and DSCT in assessing functional cardiac parameters of a moving heart phantom |
title_short | Comparison of MRI, 64-slice MDCT and DSCT in assessing functional cardiac parameters of a moving heart phantom |
title_sort | comparison of mri, 64-slice mdct and dsct in assessing functional cardiac parameters of a moving heart phantom |
topic | Cardiac |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816236/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18953545 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1197-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT groenjm comparisonofmri64slicemdctanddsctinassessingfunctionalcardiacparametersofamovingheartphantom AT vandervleutenpa comparisonofmri64slicemdctanddsctinassessingfunctionalcardiacparametersofamovingheartphantom AT greutermjw comparisonofmri64slicemdctanddsctinassessingfunctionalcardiacparametersofamovingheartphantom AT zijlstraf comparisonofmri64slicemdctanddsctinassessingfunctionalcardiacparametersofamovingheartphantom AT oudkerkm comparisonofmri64slicemdctanddsctinassessingfunctionalcardiacparametersofamovingheartphantom |