Browse > Article

Comparison of Left Ventricular Volume and Function between 46 Channel Multi-detector Computed Tomography (MDCT) and Echocardiography  

Park, Chan-Beom (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, St. Paul's Hospital)
Cho, Min-Seob (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital)
Moon, Mi-Hyoung (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Kangnam St. Mary's Hospital)
Cho, Eun-Ju (Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, St. Paul's Hospital)
Lee, Bae-Young (Department of Radiology, St. Paul's Hospital)
Kim, Chi-Kyung (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, St. Paul's Hospital)
Jin, Ung (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, St. Paul's Hospital)
Publication Information
Journal of Chest Surgery / v.40, no.1, 2007 , pp. 45-51 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background: Although echocardiography is usually used for quantitative assessment of left ventricular function, the recently developed 16-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is not only capable of evaluating the coronary arteries but also left ventricular function. Therefore, the objective of our study was to compare the values of left ventricular function quantified by MDCT to those by echocardiography for evaluation of its regards to clinical applications. Material and Method: From 49 patients who underwent MDCT in our hospital from November 1, 2003 to January 31, 2005, we enrolled 20 patients who underwent echocardiography during the same period for this study. Left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), stroke volume index (SVI), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and ejection fraction (EF) were analyzed. Result: Average LVEDVI ($80.86{\pm}34.69mL$ for MDCT vs $60.23{\pm}29.06mL$ for Echocardiography, p<0.01), average LVESVI ($37.96{\pm}24.52mL$ for MDCT vs $25.68{\pm}16.57mL$ for Echocardiography, p<0.01), average SVI ($42.90{\pm}15.86mL$ for MDCT vs $34.54{\pm}17.94mL$ for Echocardiography, p<0.01), average LVMI ($72.14{\pm}25.35mL$ for MDCT vs $130.35{\pm}53.10mL$ for Echocardiography, p<0.01), and average EF ($55.63{\pm}12.91mL$ for MOCT vs $59.95{\pm}12.75ml$ for Echocardiography, p<0.05) showed significant difference between both groups. Average LVEDVI, average LVESVI, and average SVI were higher in MDCT, and average LVMI and average EF were higher in echocardiogram. Comparing correlation for each parameters between both groups, LVEDVI $(r^2=0.74,\;p<0.0001)$, LVESVI $(r^2=0.69,\;p<0.0001)$ and SVI $(r^2=0.55,\;p<0.0001)$ showed high relevance, LVMI $(r^2=0.84,\;p<0.0001)$ showed very high relevance, and $EF (r^2=0.45,\;p=0.0002)$ showed relatively high relevance. Conclusion: Quantitative assessment of left ventricular volume and function using 16-slice MDCT showed high relevance compared with echocardiography, therefore may be a feasible assessment method. However, because the average of each parameters showed significant difference, the absolute values between both studies may not be appropriate for clinical applications. Furthermore, considering the future development of MDCT, we expect to be able to easily evaluate the assessment of coronary artery stenosis along with left ventricular function in coronary artery disease patients.
Keywords
Echocardiography; Computed tomography; Heart function;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Yamaguchi A, Ino T, Adachi H, et al. Left ventricular volume predicts postoperative course in patients with ischemic cardiomyopalthy. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;65:434-8   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Yamamuro M, Tadamura E, Kubo S, et al. Cardiac Functional Analysis with multi-detector row CT and segmental reconstruction algorithm: comparision with echocardiography, SPECT, and MR Imaging. Radiology 2005;234:381-90   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Schlosser T, Pagonidis K, Herborn CU, et al. Assessment of left ventricular parameters using 16-MDCT and new software for endocardial and epicardial border delineation. AJR 2005;184:765-73   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Schiller NB, Acquatella H, Ports TA, et al. Left ventricular volume from paired biplane two-dimensional echocardiography. Circulation 1979;60:547-55   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
5 Treede H, Becker C, Reichenspurner H, et al. Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in coronary surgery: first experiences with a new tool for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:S1398-S1402   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Song MH, Ito T, Watanabe T, Nakamura H. Multidetector computed tomography versus coronary angiogram in evaluation of coronary artery bypass grafts. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;79:585-8   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Juergens KU, Maintz D, Gurde M, et al. Multi-detector row computed tomography of the heart: does a multi-segment reconstruction algorithm improve left ventricular volume measurement? Eur Radiol 2005;15:111-7   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Athanasuleas CL, Stnley AWH, Buckberg GD, et al. Surgical anterior ventricular endocardial restoration (SAVER) in the dilated remodeled ventricle after anterior myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:1199-209   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Ropers D, Baum U, Pohle K, et al. Detection of coronary artery stenosis with thin-slice multi-detector row spiral computed tomography and multiplanar reconstruction. Circulation 2003;107:664-6   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Vogl TJ, Abolmaali ND, Diebold T, et al. Techniques for the detection of coronary atherosclerosis: multi-detector row CT coronary angiography. Radioloy 2002;223:212-20
11 Juergens KU, Grude M, Fallenberg EM, et al. Using ECG-gated multidetector CT to evaluate global left ventricular myocardial function in patients with coronary artery disease. AJR 2002;179:1545-50   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Achenbach S, Giesler T, Ropers D, et al. Detection of coronary artery stenoses by contrast-enhanced, retrospectively electrocardiographically-gated, multislice spiral computed tomography. Circulation 2001;103:2535-8   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
13 Mochizuki T, Murase K, Higashino H, et al. Two-and three-dimensional CT ventriculography: a new application of helical CT. AJR 2000;174:203-8   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Mahnken AH, Koos R, Katoh M, et al. Sixteen-slice spiral CT versus MR imaging for the assessment of left ventricular function in acute myocardial infarction. Eur Radiol 2005; 15:714-20   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Gutierrez-Chico JL, Zamorano JL, Perez de Isla L, et al. Comparison of left ventricular volumes and ejection fractions measured by three-dimensional echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with various cardiomyopathies. Am J Cardiol 2005;95:809-13   DOI   ScienceOn
16 White HD, Norris RM, Brown MA, Brandt PWT, Whitlock RML, Wild CJ. Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction. Circulation 1987;76:44-51   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
17 Dor V, Saab M, Coste P, Kornaszewska M, Montiglio F. Left ventricular aneurysm: a new surgical approach. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1989;37:11-9   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Juergens KU, Grude M, Maintz D, et al. Multi-detector row CT of left ventricular function with dedicated analysis software versus MR Imaging: initial experience. Radiology 2004;230:403-10   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Mochizuki T, Murase K, Higashino H, et al. Two-and three-dimensional CT ventriculography: a new application of helical CT. AJR 2000;174:203-8   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Grude M, Juergens KU, Wichter T, et al. Evaluation of global left ventricular myocardial function with electrocardiogram- gated multidetector computed tomography. Comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2003;38:653-61   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Achenbach S, Ulzheimer S, Baum U, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography by retrospectively ECG-gated multislice spiral CT. Circulation 2000;102:2823-8   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn