HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Juergens, K. U. Articles by Fischbach, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Juergens, K. U. Articles by Fischbach, R. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Automated Threshold-Based 3D Segmentation Versus Short-Axis Planimetry for Assessment of Global Left Ventricular Function with Dual-Source MDCT

¹ Department of Clinical Radiology, University of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Straße 33, D-48149 Muenster, Germany.
² Department of Cardiology and Angiology, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
³ Department of Radiology, Asklepios Clinic Altona, Hamburg, Germany.

View larger version (8K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1A —Results of linear regression analysis 3D threshold segmentation versus short-axis planimetry (reader 1). Scatter diagram shows results for left ventricular end-diastolic volume (y = 2.1766, x = 0.9666).

View larger version (8K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1B —Results of linear regression analysis 3D threshold segmentation versus short-axis planimetry (reader 1). Scatter diagram shows results for left ventricular end-systolic volumes (y = 4.3000, x = 0.9582).

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1C —Results of linear regression analysis 3D threshold segmentation versus short-axis planimetry (reader 1). Scatter diagram shows results for left ventricular ejection fraction (y = 2.1539, x = 1.0103).

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 1D —Results of linear regression analysis 3D threshold segmentation versus short-axis planimetry (reader 1). Scatter diagram shows results for left ventricular stroke volume (y = 7.6274, x = 0.9086).

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 2A —Results of Bland-Altman analysis depict systematic error and limits of agreement for 3D threshold segmentation and short axis–based planimetry (reader 1). Plot shows results for left ventricular end-diastolic volume.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 2B —Results of Bland-Altman analysis depict systematic error and limits of agreement for 3D threshold segmentation and short axis–based planimetry (reader 1). Plot shows results for left ventricular end-systolic volume.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 2C —Results of Bland-Altman analysis depict systematic error and limits of agreement for 3D threshold segmentation and short axis–based planimetry (reader 1). Plot shows results for left ventricular stroke volume.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 2D —Results of Bland-Altman analysis depict systematic error and limits of agreement for 3D threshold segmentation and short axis–based planimetry (reader 1). Plot shows results for left ventricular ejection fraction.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 3A —Results of Bland-Altman analysis depict systematic error and limits of agreement between reader 1 and reader 2 in use of 3D threshold segmentation. Plot shows results for left ventricular end-diastolic volume.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 3B —Results of Bland-Altman analysis depict systematic error and limits of agreement between reader 1 and reader 2 in use of 3D threshold segmentation. Plot shows results for left ventricular end-systolic volume.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 3C —Results of Bland-Altman analysis depict systematic error and limits of agreement between reader 1 and reader 2 in use of 3D threshold segmentation. Plot shows results for left ventricular ejection fraction.

View larger version (106K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 4A —68-year-old man with three-vessel coronary artery disease and inferolateral myocardial infarction. Diastolic (A–C) and systolic (D–F) CT image reformations show reduced diastolic wall thickness and absence of systolic wall thickening of inferior and inferolateral walls of left ventricle. Left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction determined with 3D threshold segmentation algorithm (A, B, D, E) and 2D short axis–based planimetry (Simpson method) (C, F) show comparable results.

View larger version (79K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 4B —68-year-old man with three-vessel coronary artery disease and inferolateral myocardial infarction. Diastolic (A–C) and systolic (D–F) CT image reformations show reduced diastolic wall thickness and absence of systolic wall thickening of inferior and inferolateral walls of left ventricle. Left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction determined with 3D threshold segmentation algorithm (A, B, D, E) and 2D short axis–based planimetry (Simpson method) (C, F) show comparable results.

View larger version (76K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 4C —68-year-old man with three-vessel coronary artery disease and inferolateral myocardial infarction. Diastolic (A–C) and systolic (D–F) CT image reformations show reduced diastolic wall thickness and absence of systolic wall thickening of inferior and inferolateral walls of left ventricle. Left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction determined with 3D threshold segmentation algorithm (A, B, D, E) and 2D short axis–based planimetry (Simpson method) (C, F) show comparable results.

View larger version (103K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 4D —68-year-old man with three-vessel coronary artery disease and inferolateral myocardial infarction. Diastolic (A–C) and systolic (D–F) CT image reformations show reduced diastolic wall thickness and absence of systolic wall thickening of inferior and inferolateral walls of left ventricle. Left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction determined with 3D threshold segmentation algorithm (A, B, D, E) and 2D short axis–based planimetry (Simpson method) (C, F) show comparable results.

View larger version (74K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 4E —68-year-old man with three-vessel coronary artery disease and inferolateral myocardial infarction. Diastolic (A–C) and systolic (D–F) CT image reformations show reduced diastolic wall thickness and absence of systolic wall thickening of inferior and inferolateral walls of left ventricle. Left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction determined with 3D threshold segmentation algorithm (A, B, D, E) and 2D short axis–based planimetry (Simpson method) (C, F) show comparable results.

View larger version (71K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Fig. 4F —68-year-old man with three-vessel coronary artery disease and inferolateral myocardial infarction. Diastolic (A–C) and systolic (D–F) CT image reformations show reduced diastolic wall thickness and absence of systolic wall thickening of inferior and inferolateral walls of left ventricle. Left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction determined with 3D threshold segmentation algorithm (A, B, D, E) and 2D short axis–based planimetry (Simpson method) (C, F) show comparable results.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati