Cited 4 times since 2003 (0.2 per year) source: EuropePMC The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, Volume 19, Issue 4, 1 1 2003, Pages 259-266 End-diastolic and end-systolic volume from the left ventricular angiogram: how accurate is visual frame selection? Comparison between visual and semi-automated comnputer-assisted analysis. Staal EM, de Heer M, Jukema JW, Koning G, van der Wall EE, Reiber JH, Baan J, Steendijk P
Background
End-diastolic (ED), end-systolic (ES) left ventricular (LV) volumes and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) are important parameters for clinical decision making in heart disease. In clinical practice the frames from cine-angiography with the largest and smallest opacified LV areas are visually selected and the endocardial borders traced as LVED and LVES contours, respectively. We compared the accuracy of this visual method using two frames with a semi-automated computer assisted frame-by-frame analysis of the complete opacified cardiac cycles.
Methods and results
In 17 patients a biplane LV cine-angiogram was obtained at 25 frames/s. Complete frame-by-frame analysis was performed using semi-automatic border detection software. Experienced independent observers visually selected and manually traced LVED and LVES in the so-called visually assessed two-frame method in a consensus meeting. LV volumes were calculated by the area-length method. Mean LVEDV, LVESV and LVEF were 133 +/- 57, 56 +/- 40 ml and 61 +/- 16%, respectively, for the visually assessed two-frame method, and 117 +/- 49, 53 +/- 33 ml and 60 +/- 13%, respectively, for the semi-automated computer assisted frame-by-frame method. LVEDV was significantly higher in the visually assessed two-frame method (p < 0.01). Linear regression analysis showed an excellent correlation between semi-automated computer-assisted frame-by-frame and the visually assessed two-frame LVEDV (y = 1.2x - 2.9; r2 = 0.98), LVESV (y = 1.2x - 8.2; r2 = 0.97) and good linear correlation for LVEF (p = 1.2x - 3.6; r2 = 0.82). Bland-Altman analysis showed respectively a bias of 16.4, 2.4 ml and 5.0% with overall wide limits of agreement (-6.6 and 39.4 ml; -16.6 and 21.4 ml; -9.0% and 19.1%).
Conclusion
Correlation is excellent when visually assessed LVED and LVES are compared with a semi-automated computer assisted frame-by-frame analysis. However, the visually assessed two-frame method tends to overestimate the volumes obtained by semi-automated computer-assisted frame-by-frame analysis, especially for LVEDV, indicating that visual selection will yield a higher LVEF, which may influence clinical decision making.
