Multisegment and halfscan reconstruction of 16-slice computed tomography for assessment of regional and global left ventricular myocardial function.
ABSTRACT 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.
SourceAvailable from: Yoichi Ajiro
Article: Dabigatran for left atrial thrombusEuropean Heart Journal 05/2013; 34(35). DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/eht148 · 14.72 Impact Factor
RöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der R 03/2007; 179(3):246-260. DOI:10.1055/s-2007-962830 · 1.96 Impact Factor