左心室测量的差异：衰减法与基于轮廓的方法。
Differences in left ventricular measurements: Attenuation versus contour based methods.
机构信息
Department of Medicine (Cardiology), University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin St, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4W7, Canada.
Department of Medicine (Cardiology), University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin St, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4W7, Canada; Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, 451 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
出版信息
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2019 Jul-Aug;13(4):174-178. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2019.08.003. Epub 2019 Aug 7.
BACKGROUND
Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) left ventricle (LV) volumes have prognostic value. LV measurements however can differ depending on post-processing software. Two common methods are the contour (CON) or attenuation (ATT) based methods. This study aims to determine differences in LV volume measurements using the 2 methods.
METHODS
LV mid-diastolic volumes (LVMDV) were measured using both ATT and CON from 2 vendors in 750 consecutive patients undergoing CCTA. 500 were measured in a derivation cohort to establish a linear regression equation that would correct for any detected differences between the two methods. The equation was then assessed in 250 cases in the validation cohort. Comparisons were made between intra-vendor LVMDV and LVMDV as well as inter-vendor LVMDV.
RESULTS
In the derivation cohort, the correlation between the two methods and vendors were very good (0.98 and 0.97 respectively). LVMDV was 20.4 ± 7.4% greater than LVMDV. LVMDV was 9.2 ± 6.6% greater with one vendor compared to the other. Validation cohort corrected LVMDV was not statistically different to measured LVMDV (p = 0.45).
CONCLUSION
A systematic difference was found between ATT and CON measuring methods. Using a derived linear regression equation, we were able to correct for differences in measurement techniques. The method of LVMDV measurement requires careful consideration when establishing reference values and extrapolating published study results.
背景
冠状动脉计算机断层血管造影术（CCTA）左心室（LV）容积具有预后价值。然而，LV 测量结果可能因后处理软件而异。两种常见的方法是基于轮廓（CON）或衰减（ATT）的方法。本研究旨在确定使用这两种方法测量 LV 容积的差异。
方法
在 750 例连续接受 CCTA 的患者中，使用来自 2 个供应商的 ATT 和 CON 测量 LV 舒张中期容积（LVMDV）。在推导队列中测量了 500 个，以建立一个线性回归方程，该方程将纠正两种方法之间检测到的任何差异。然后在验证队列中的 250 例中评估该方程。比较了两个供应商的 LVMDV 和 LVMDV 以及两个供应商之间的 LVMDV。
结果
在推导队列中，两种方法之间以及两个供应商之间的相关性都非常好（分别为 0.98 和 0.97）。与 ATT 相比，CON 测量的 LVMDV 高 20.4%±7.4%。与另一个供应商相比，一个供应商的 LVMDV 高 9.2%±6.6%。验证队列中校正的 LVMDV 与测量的 LVMDV 无统计学差异（p=0.45）。
结论
发现 ATT 和 CON 测量方法之间存在系统差异。通过使用推导的线性回归方程，我们能够纠正测量技术的差异。在建立参考值和推断已发表研究结果时，LVMDV 测量方法需要仔细考虑。
Zotero 插件