Comparison of LV mass and volume measurements derived from electron beam tomography using cine imaging and angiographic imaging.

PURPOSE

To estimate the variation of left ventricular (LV) mass and volume measurement with cine and angiography by electron beam tomography (EBT).

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Sixty-three consecutive patients (41 men, 22 women; age range 46-91) referred for cardiac imaging for clinical indications underwent cine and coronary artery electron beam angiography (EBA) studies on the same day. The cine images consisted of 144 images (12 slices/level x 12 levels), taken 12 frames/s for a full cardiac cycle. The EBA images consisted of 50-70 slices triggered at end-systole, with an acquisition time of 100 ms/slice. Slice thickness was 8 mm for the cine images and 1.5 mm for the EBA images. A total volume of 120-180 ml of nonionic contrast was used for each subject. The LV mass (myocardial tissue volume), LV cavity volume and total LV volume (tissue + cavity) measurements were completed using the software from the EBT computer console (G.E., S. San Francisco, CA).

RESULTS

The LV mass, cavity volume and total LV volumes at end-systole were 124.11 g, 45.66 and 163.86 ml when derived from the cine images and 130.74 g, 41.31 and 165.82 ml when derived from the EBA images. There were no significant differences between the cine and EBA-derived measurements, however the EBA-derived measurements showed slightly larger LV mass (mean 6.63 g), smaller cavity volume (mean -4.35 ml) and larger total LV volume (mean 1.96 ml, all p > 0.05) than did the cine-derived measurements. Based on case-by-case observations, these differences appear to be related to the higher spatial resolution of the thinner EBA images which allows better discrimination between papillary and trabecular muscle and LV. This leads to slightly smaller cavity size estimations and greater LV mass measurements. There was significant correlation between cine and EBA-derived measurements. Formulas were developed for relating the measurements made from the two modalities as follows: For LV mass: EBA value = 0.91 x cine value + 17.09, R = 0.95, p < 0.001; For LV cavity volume: EBA value = 1.06 x cine value - 6.91, R = 0.96, p < 0.001; For total LV volume: EBA value = 0.98 x cine value + 5.09 in ml, p < 0.001. The mean differences in measurements using the two modalities were 8.1, 18.2 and 6.5% for LV mass, LV cavity volume and total LV volume, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both cine and EBA images were useful for measuring LV mass and volume with good intertest agreement. Cardiac volume and mass measurements derived from cine EBT studies probably slightly underestimate LV mass and overestimate LV volume.