Cargando…

Quantification of infarct size and myocardium at risk: evaluation of different techniques and its implications

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate seven methods for quantifying myocardial oedema [2 standard deviation (SD), 3 SD, 5 SD, full width at half maximum (FWHM), Otsu method, manual thresholding, and manual contouring] from T(2)-weighted short tau inversion recovery (T2w STIR) and also to reass...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McAlindon, Elisa, Pufulete, Maria, Lawton, Chris, Angelini, Gianni D., Bucciarelli-Ducci, Chiara
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4463003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25736308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jev001
_version_ 1782375752613756928
author McAlindon, Elisa
Pufulete, Maria
Lawton, Chris
Angelini, Gianni D.
Bucciarelli-Ducci, Chiara
author_facet McAlindon, Elisa
Pufulete, Maria
Lawton, Chris
Angelini, Gianni D.
Bucciarelli-Ducci, Chiara
author_sort McAlindon, Elisa
collection PubMed
description AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate seven methods for quantifying myocardial oedema [2 standard deviation (SD), 3 SD, 5 SD, full width at half maximum (FWHM), Otsu method, manual thresholding, and manual contouring] from T(2)-weighted short tau inversion recovery (T2w STIR) and also to reassess these same seven methods for quantifying acute infarct size following ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study focuses on test–retest repeatability while assessing inter- and intraobserver variability. T2w STIR and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) are the most widely used cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) techniques to image oedema and infarction, respectively. However, no consensus exists on the best quantification method to be used to analyse these images. This has potential important implications in the research setting where both myocardial oedema and infarct size are increasingly used and measured as surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty patients day 2 following acute reperfused STEMI were scanned for myocardial oedema and infarction (LGE). All patients had a second CMR scan on the same day >6 h apart from the first one. Images were analysed offline by two independent observers using the semi-automated software. Both oedema and LGE were quantified using seven techniques (2 SD, 3 SD, 5 SD, Otsu, FWHM, manual threshold, and manual contouring). Interobserver, intraobserver and test–retest agreement and variability for both infarct size and oedema quantification were assessed. Infarct size and myocardial quantification vary depending on the quantification method used. Overall, manual contouring provided the lowest inter-, intraobserver, and interscan variability for both infarct size and oedema quantification. The FWHM method for infarct size quantification and the Otsu method for myocardial oedema quantification are acceptable alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: This study determines that, in acute myocardial infarction (MI), manual contouring has the lowest overall variability for quantification of both myocardial oedema and MI when analysed by experienced observers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4463003
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44630032015-06-17 Quantification of infarct size and myocardium at risk: evaluation of different techniques and its implications McAlindon, Elisa Pufulete, Maria Lawton, Chris Angelini, Gianni D. Bucciarelli-Ducci, Chiara Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Original Articles AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate seven methods for quantifying myocardial oedema [2 standard deviation (SD), 3 SD, 5 SD, full width at half maximum (FWHM), Otsu method, manual thresholding, and manual contouring] from T(2)-weighted short tau inversion recovery (T2w STIR) and also to reassess these same seven methods for quantifying acute infarct size following ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study focuses on test–retest repeatability while assessing inter- and intraobserver variability. T2w STIR and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) are the most widely used cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) techniques to image oedema and infarction, respectively. However, no consensus exists on the best quantification method to be used to analyse these images. This has potential important implications in the research setting where both myocardial oedema and infarct size are increasingly used and measured as surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty patients day 2 following acute reperfused STEMI were scanned for myocardial oedema and infarction (LGE). All patients had a second CMR scan on the same day >6 h apart from the first one. Images were analysed offline by two independent observers using the semi-automated software. Both oedema and LGE were quantified using seven techniques (2 SD, 3 SD, 5 SD, Otsu, FWHM, manual threshold, and manual contouring). Interobserver, intraobserver and test–retest agreement and variability for both infarct size and oedema quantification were assessed. Infarct size and myocardial quantification vary depending on the quantification method used. Overall, manual contouring provided the lowest inter-, intraobserver, and interscan variability for both infarct size and oedema quantification. The FWHM method for infarct size quantification and the Otsu method for myocardial oedema quantification are acceptable alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: This study determines that, in acute myocardial infarction (MI), manual contouring has the lowest overall variability for quantification of both myocardial oedema and MI when analysed by experienced observers. Oxford University Press 2015-07 2015-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4463003/ /pubmed/25736308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jev001 Text en © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Articles
McAlindon, Elisa
Pufulete, Maria
Lawton, Chris
Angelini, Gianni D.
Bucciarelli-Ducci, Chiara
Quantification of infarct size and myocardium at risk: evaluation of different techniques and its implications
title Quantification of infarct size and myocardium at risk: evaluation of different techniques and its implications
title_full Quantification of infarct size and myocardium at risk: evaluation of different techniques and its implications
title_fullStr Quantification of infarct size and myocardium at risk: evaluation of different techniques and its implications
title_full_unstemmed Quantification of infarct size and myocardium at risk: evaluation of different techniques and its implications
title_short Quantification of infarct size and myocardium at risk: evaluation of different techniques and its implications
title_sort quantification of infarct size and myocardium at risk: evaluation of different techniques and its implications
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4463003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25736308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jev001
work_keys_str_mv AT mcalindonelisa quantificationofinfarctsizeandmyocardiumatriskevaluationofdifferenttechniquesanditsimplications
AT pufuletemaria quantificationofinfarctsizeandmyocardiumatriskevaluationofdifferenttechniquesanditsimplications
AT lawtonchris quantificationofinfarctsizeandmyocardiumatriskevaluationofdifferenttechniquesanditsimplications
AT angelinigiannid quantificationofinfarctsizeandmyocardiumatriskevaluationofdifferenttechniquesanditsimplications
AT bucciarelliduccichiara quantificationofinfarctsizeandmyocardiumatriskevaluationofdifferenttechniquesanditsimplications