Multisegment and Halfscan Reconstruction of 16-Slice Computed Tomography for Assessment of Regional and Global Left Ventricular Myocardial Function
Department of Radiology, Freie Universität and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany. Investigative Radiology
(Impact Factor: 4.44).
04/2006; 41(4):400-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000201233.42994.9b
We sought to prospectively compare multisegment and halfscan reconstruction of 16-slice computed tomography (CT) for the assessment of regional and global left ventricular myocardial function with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the reference standard.
Forty-two patients underwent CT with 16 x 0.5-mm detector collimation. Electrocardiogram-gated reconstructions were generated with multisegment reconstruction (using up to 4 segments correlated with the raw data of up to 4 heartbeats) and standard halfscan reconstruction. Steady-state free-precession cine MRI was acquired within 24 hours.
More normal myocardial segments were identified correctly with multisegment (95%, 620/656) compared with halfscan reconstruction (88%, 582/656) of CT (P < 0.001). Also, the accuracy (92% [657/714] vs. 87% [620/714]) and rate of nondiagnostic segments (0% vs. 5% [33/714]) were significantly better when using multisegment reconstruction (P < 0.001). The image quality with multisegment reconstruction was significantly superior to that achieved with halfscan reconstruction (P < 0.001). In the assessment of global left ventricular function, multisegment and halfscan reconstruction of CT showed high correlations for all parameters with MRI, whereas Bland-Altman analysis revealed smaller limits of agreement for assessment of myocardial mass with multisegment reconstruction (P = 0.025), but no significant differences between both reconstruction techniques in the measurement of left ventricular volumes as compared with MRI.
Multisegment reconstruction of 16-detector row CT improves image quality and assessment of regional wall motion compared with standard halfscan reconstruction.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.