Limits...
Evaluation of left atrial volumes using multidetector computed tomography: comparison with echocardiography.

Gweon HM, Kim SJ, Kim TH, Lee SM, Hong YJ, Rim SJ - Korean J Radiol (2010)

Bottom Line: The LA end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes (LAESV and LAEDV) measured by the 2D-LB method correlated well with those measured by the 3D-VTB method using cardiac MDCT (r = 0.763, r = 0.786, p = 0.001).However, there was a significant difference in the LAESVs between the two measurement methods using cardiac MDCT (p < 0.05).A significant correlation was found between the two different measurement methods for evaluating LA volumes by cardiac MDCT.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University Health System, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To prospectively assess the relationship between the two different measurement methods for the evaluation of left atrial (LA) volume using cardiac multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and to compare the results between cardiac MDCT and echocardiography.

Materials and methods: Thirty-five patients (20 men, 15 women; mean age, 60 years) underwent cardiac MDCT angiography for coronary artery disease. The LA volumes were measured using two different methods: the two dimensional (2D) length-based (LB) method measured along the three-orthogonal planes of the LA and the 3D volumetric threshold-based (VTB) method measured according to the threshold 3D segmentation of the LA. The results obtained by cardiac MDCT were compared with those obtained by echocardiography.

Results: The LA end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes (LAESV and LAEDV) measured by the 2D-LB method correlated well with those measured by the 3D-VTB method using cardiac MDCT (r = 0.763, r = 0.786, p = 0.001). However, there was a significant difference in the LAESVs between the two measurement methods using cardiac MDCT (p < 0.05). The LAESV measured by cardiac MDCT correlated well with measurements by echocardiography (r = 0.864, p = 0.001), however with a significant difference (p < 0.01) in their volumes. The cardiac MDCT overestimated the LAESV by 22% compared to measurements by echocardiography.

Conclusion: A significant correlation was found between the two different measurement methods for evaluating LA volumes by cardiac MDCT. Further, cardiac MDCT correlates well with echocardiography in evaluating the LA volume. However, there are significant differences in the LAESV between the two measurement methods using cardiac MDCT and between cardiac MDCT and echocardiography.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Linear regression analysis and Bland-Altman plots for left atrial end-systolic volume between cardiac multidetector CT and echocardiography. LAESV = left atrial end-systolic volume, ECHO = echocardiographyA. Left atrial end-systolic volumes were plotted by linear regression for cardiac multidetector CT with 3D volumetric threshold-based method (3D VTBM) and echocardiography. Slope, correlation coefficient, and p value were 0.949, 0.864, and less than 0.001 (Y = 20.536 + 0.949X, r = 0.864), respectively.B. Bland-Altman plots showing relationship between cardiac multidetector CT with 3D volumetric threshold-based method and echocardiography with modified biplane Simpson's method (MBSM) for left atrial end-systolic volume. Mean differences (y-axes) between each pair ([mean 3D VTBM] - [mean MBSM]) are plotted against average values (x-axes) of same pair ([{mean 3D VTBM} + {mean MBSM}]/2). Results showed that echocardiography underestimated left atrial end-systolic volume by 22% compared to cardiac multidetector CT (p < 0.05).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2864855&req=5

Figure 5: Linear regression analysis and Bland-Altman plots for left atrial end-systolic volume between cardiac multidetector CT and echocardiography. LAESV = left atrial end-systolic volume, ECHO = echocardiographyA. Left atrial end-systolic volumes were plotted by linear regression for cardiac multidetector CT with 3D volumetric threshold-based method (3D VTBM) and echocardiography. Slope, correlation coefficient, and p value were 0.949, 0.864, and less than 0.001 (Y = 20.536 + 0.949X, r = 0.864), respectively.B. Bland-Altman plots showing relationship between cardiac multidetector CT with 3D volumetric threshold-based method and echocardiography with modified biplane Simpson's method (MBSM) for left atrial end-systolic volume. Mean differences (y-axes) between each pair ([mean 3D VTBM] - [mean MBSM]) are plotted against average values (x-axes) of same pair ([{mean 3D VTBM} + {mean MBSM}]/2). Results showed that echocardiography underestimated left atrial end-systolic volume by 22% compared to cardiac multidetector CT (p < 0.05).

Mentions: Using the modified biplane Simpson's method, the mean LAESV (79 ± 17 ml), measured by cardiac MDCT using the 3D VTB method, showed a good correlation with the volume (62 ± 15 ml) measured by ECG (r = 0.864, p = 0.001) (Fig. 5A) (Table 2). There were significant differences in the mean LAESV between cardiac MDCT using the 3D VTB method and ECG using the modified biplane Simpson's method (p < 0.01). Cardiac MDCT significantly overestimated of the LAESV of 17 ± 9 ml (22%) when compared to ECG (Fig. 5B).


Evaluation of left atrial volumes using multidetector computed tomography: comparison with echocardiography.

Gweon HM, Kim SJ, Kim TH, Lee SM, Hong YJ, Rim SJ - Korean J Radiol (2010)

Linear regression analysis and Bland-Altman plots for left atrial end-systolic volume between cardiac multidetector CT and echocardiography. LAESV = left atrial end-systolic volume, ECHO = echocardiographyA. Left atrial end-systolic volumes were plotted by linear regression for cardiac multidetector CT with 3D volumetric threshold-based method (3D VTBM) and echocardiography. Slope, correlation coefficient, and p value were 0.949, 0.864, and less than 0.001 (Y = 20.536 + 0.949X, r = 0.864), respectively.B. Bland-Altman plots showing relationship between cardiac multidetector CT with 3D volumetric threshold-based method and echocardiography with modified biplane Simpson's method (MBSM) for left atrial end-systolic volume. Mean differences (y-axes) between each pair ([mean 3D VTBM] - [mean MBSM]) are plotted against average values (x-axes) of same pair ([{mean 3D VTBM} + {mean MBSM}]/2). Results showed that echocardiography underestimated left atrial end-systolic volume by 22% compared to cardiac multidetector CT (p < 0.05).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2864855&req=5

Figure 5: Linear regression analysis and Bland-Altman plots for left atrial end-systolic volume between cardiac multidetector CT and echocardiography. LAESV = left atrial end-systolic volume, ECHO = echocardiographyA. Left atrial end-systolic volumes were plotted by linear regression for cardiac multidetector CT with 3D volumetric threshold-based method (3D VTBM) and echocardiography. Slope, correlation coefficient, and p value were 0.949, 0.864, and less than 0.001 (Y = 20.536 + 0.949X, r = 0.864), respectively.B. Bland-Altman plots showing relationship between cardiac multidetector CT with 3D volumetric threshold-based method and echocardiography with modified biplane Simpson's method (MBSM) for left atrial end-systolic volume. Mean differences (y-axes) between each pair ([mean 3D VTBM] - [mean MBSM]) are plotted against average values (x-axes) of same pair ([{mean 3D VTBM} + {mean MBSM}]/2). Results showed that echocardiography underestimated left atrial end-systolic volume by 22% compared to cardiac multidetector CT (p < 0.05).
Mentions: Using the modified biplane Simpson's method, the mean LAESV (79 ± 17 ml), measured by cardiac MDCT using the 3D VTB method, showed a good correlation with the volume (62 ± 15 ml) measured by ECG (r = 0.864, p = 0.001) (Fig. 5A) (Table 2). There were significant differences in the mean LAESV between cardiac MDCT using the 3D VTB method and ECG using the modified biplane Simpson's method (p < 0.01). Cardiac MDCT significantly overestimated of the LAESV of 17 ± 9 ml (22%) when compared to ECG (Fig. 5B).

Bottom Line: The LA end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes (LAESV and LAEDV) measured by the 2D-LB method correlated well with those measured by the 3D-VTB method using cardiac MDCT (r = 0.763, r = 0.786, p = 0.001).However, there was a significant difference in the LAESVs between the two measurement methods using cardiac MDCT (p < 0.05).A significant correlation was found between the two different measurement methods for evaluating LA volumes by cardiac MDCT.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University Health System, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To prospectively assess the relationship between the two different measurement methods for the evaluation of left atrial (LA) volume using cardiac multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and to compare the results between cardiac MDCT and echocardiography.

Materials and methods: Thirty-five patients (20 men, 15 women; mean age, 60 years) underwent cardiac MDCT angiography for coronary artery disease. The LA volumes were measured using two different methods: the two dimensional (2D) length-based (LB) method measured along the three-orthogonal planes of the LA and the 3D volumetric threshold-based (VTB) method measured according to the threshold 3D segmentation of the LA. The results obtained by cardiac MDCT were compared with those obtained by echocardiography.

Results: The LA end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes (LAESV and LAEDV) measured by the 2D-LB method correlated well with those measured by the 3D-VTB method using cardiac MDCT (r = 0.763, r = 0.786, p = 0.001). However, there was a significant difference in the LAESVs between the two measurement methods using cardiac MDCT (p < 0.05). The LAESV measured by cardiac MDCT correlated well with measurements by echocardiography (r = 0.864, p = 0.001), however with a significant difference (p < 0.01) in their volumes. The cardiac MDCT overestimated the LAESV by 22% compared to measurements by echocardiography.

Conclusion: A significant correlation was found between the two different measurement methods for evaluating LA volumes by cardiac MDCT. Further, cardiac MDCT correlates well with echocardiography in evaluating the LA volume. However, there are significant differences in the LAESV between the two measurement methods using cardiac MDCT and between cardiac MDCT and echocardiography.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus