Improved left ventricular mass quantification with partial voxel interpolation: in vivo and necropsy validation of a novel cardiac MRI segmentation algorithm.

TitleImproved left ventricular mass quantification with partial voxel interpolation: in vivo and necropsy validation of a novel cardiac MRI segmentation algorithm.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2012
AuthorsCodella NCF, Lee HYeoun, Fieno DS, Chen DW, Hurtado-Rua S, Kochar M, Finn JPaul, Judd R, Goyal P, Schenendorf J, Cham MD, Devereux RB, Prince M, Wang Y, Weinsaft JW
JournalCirc Cardiovasc Imaging
Volume5
Issue1
Pagination137-46
Date Published2012 Jan
ISSN1942-0080
KeywordsAlgorithms, Animals, Dogs, Female, Heart Ventricles, Humans, Hypertrophy, Left Ventricular, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Observer Variation, Reproducibility of Results, Swine, Ultrasonography, Ventricular Function, Left, Ventricular Remodeling
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) typically quantifies LV mass (LVM) by means of manual planimetry (MP), but this approach is time-consuming and does not account for partial voxel components--myocardium admixed with blood in a single voxel. Automated segmentation (AS) can account for partial voxels, but this has not been used for LVM quantification. This study used automated CMR segmentation to test the influence of partial voxels on quantification of LVM.

METHODS AND RESULTS: LVM was quantified by AS and MP in 126 consecutive patients and 10 laboratory animals undergoing CMR. AS yielded both partial voxel (AS(PV)) and full voxel (AS(FV)) measurements. Methods were independently compared with LVM quantified on echocardiography (echo) and an ex vivo standard of LVM at necropsy. AS quantified LVM in all patients, yielding a 12-fold decrease in processing time versus MP (0:21±0:04 versus 4:18±1:02 minutes; P<0.001). AS(FV) mass (136±35 g) was slightly lower than MP (139±35; Δ=3±9 g, P<0.001). Both methods yielded similar proportions of patients with LV remodeling (P=0.73) and hypertrophy (P=1.00). Regarding partial voxel segmentation, AS(PV) yielded higher LVM (159±38 g) than MP (Δ=20±10 g) and AS(FV) (Δ=23±6 g, both P<0.001), corresponding to relative increases of 14% and 17%. In multivariable analysis, magnitude of difference between AS(PV) and AS(FV) correlated with larger voxel size (partial r=0.37, P<0.001) even after controlling for LV chamber volume (r=0.28, P=0.002) and total LVM (r=0.19, P=0.03). Among patients, AS(PV) yielded better agreement with echo (Δ=20±25 g) than did AS(FV) (Δ=43±24 g) or MP (Δ=40±22 g, both P<0.001). Among laboratory animals, AS(PV) and ex vivo results were similar (Δ=1±3 g, P=0.3), whereas AS(FV) (6±3 g, P<0.001) and MP (4±5 g, P=0.02) yielded small but significant differences with LVM at necropsy.

CONCLUSIONS: Automated segmentation of myocardial partial voxels yields a 14-17% increase in LVM versus full voxel segmentation, with increased differences correlated with lower spatial resolution. Partial voxel segmentation yields improved CMR agreement with echo and necropsy-verified LVM.

DOI10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.111.966754
Alternate JournalCirc Cardiovasc Imaging
PubMed ID22104165
PubMed Central IDPMC3658317
Grant ListK23 HL102249 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States
K23 HL102249-01 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States
Related Institute: 
MRI Research Institute (MRIRI)

Weill Cornell Medicine
Department of Radiology
525 East 68th Street New York, NY 10065