Theisen Daniel, Sandner Torleif A, Bauner Kerstin, Hayes Carmel, Rist Carsten, Reiser Maximilian F, Wintersperger Bernd J
Department of Clinical Radiology, University Hospitals of Munich Grosshadern, Munich, Germany.
Invest Radiol. 2009 Aug;44(8):463-8. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181aaf429.
To implement and evaluate the accuracy of unsupervised fully automated inline analysis of global ventricular function and myocardial mass (MM). To compare automated with manual segmentation in patients with cardiac disorders.
In 50 patients, cine imaging of the left ventricle was performed with an accelerated retrogated steady state free precession sequence (GRAPPA; R = 2) on a 1.5 Tesla whole body scanner (MAGNETOM Avanto, Siemens Healthcare, Germany). A spatial resolution of 1.4 x 1.9 mm was achieved with a slice thickness of 8 mm and a temporal resolution of 42 milliseconds. Ventricular coverage was based on 9 to 12 short axis slices extending from the annulus of the mitral valve to the apex with 2 mm gaps. Fully automated segmentation and contouring was performed instantaneously after image acquisition. In addition to automated processing, cine data sets were also manually segmented using a semi-automated postprocessing software. Results of both methods were compared with regard to end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), ejection fraction (EF), and MM. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients with normal (> or =55%) and reduced EF (<55%) based on the results of the manual analysis.
Thirty-two percent of patients had a reduced left ventricular EF of <55%. Volumetric results of the automated inline analysis for EDV (r = 0.96), ESV (r = 0.95), EF (r = 0.89), and MM (r = 0.96) showed high correlation with the results of manual segmentation (all P < 0.001). Head-to-head comparison did not show significant differences between automated and manual evaluation for EDV (153.6 +/- 52.7 mL vs. 149.1 +/- 48.3 mL; P = 0.05), ESV (61.6 +/- 31.0 mL vs. 64.1 +/- 31.7 mL; P = 0.08), and EF (58.0 +/- 11.6% vs. 58.6 +/- 11.6%; P = 0.5). However, differences were significant for MM (150.0 +/- 61.3 g vs. 142.4 +/- 59.0 g; P < 0.01). The standard error was 15.6 (EDV), 9.7 (ESV), 5.0 (EF), and 17.1 (mass). The mean time for manual analysis was 15 minutes.
Unsupervised fully automated segmentation and contouring during image reconstruction enables an accurate evaluation of global systolic cardiac function.
实施并评估全球心室功能和心肌质量(MM)的无监督全自动在线分析的准确性。比较心脏疾病患者中自动分割与手动分割的情况。
对50例患者,在1.5特斯拉全身扫描仪(德国西门子医疗公司的MAGNETOM Avanto)上采用加速回波稳态自由进动序列(GRAPPA;R = 2)进行左心室电影成像。通过8毫米的层厚和42毫秒的时间分辨率实现了1.4×1.9毫米的空间分辨率。心室覆盖基于从二尖瓣环到心尖延伸的9至12个短轴切片,切片间距为2毫米。图像采集后立即进行全自动分割和轮廓描绘。除了自动处理外,还使用半自动后处理软件对电影数据集进行手动分割。比较两种方法在舒张末期容积(EDV)、收缩末期容积(ESV)、射血分数(EF)和MM方面的结果。根据手动分析结果,对左心室射血分数正常(≥55%)和降低(<55%)的患者进行亚组分析。
32%的患者左心室射血分数降低至<55%。自动在线分析得出的EDV(r = 0.96)、ESV(r = 0.95)、EF(r = 0.89)和MM(r = 0.9)体积结果与手动分割结果高度相关(所有P < 0.001)。直接比较显示,自动和手动评估在EDV(153.6±52.7毫升对149.1±48.3毫升;P = 0.05)、ESV(61.6±31.0毫升对64.1±31.7毫升;P = 0.08)和EF(58.0±11.6%对58.6±11.6%;P = 0.5)方面无显著差异。然而,在MM方面差异显著(150.0±61.3克对142.4±59.0克;P < 0.01)。标准误差分别为15.6(EDV)、9.7(ESV)、5.0(EF)和17.1(质量)。手动分析的平均时间为15分钟。
图像重建过程中的无监督全自动分割和轮廓描绘能够准确评估整体心脏收缩功能。