Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2005 Feb;234(2):381-90.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2342031271.

Cardiac functional analysis with multi-detector row CT and segmental reconstruction algorithm: comparison with echocardiography, SPECT, and MR imaging

Masaki Yamamuro  1 , Eiji Tadamura, Shigeto Kubo, Hiroshi Toyoda, Takeshi Nishina, Muneo Ohba, Ryohei Hosokawa, Takeshi Kimura, Nagara Tamaki, Masashi Komeda, Toru Kita, Junji Konishi
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Cardiac functional analysis with multi-detector row CT and segmental reconstruction algorithm: comparison with echocardiography, SPECT, and MR imaging

Masaki Yamamuro et al. Radiology. 2005 Feb.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate accuracy of cardiac functional analysis with multi-detector row computed tomography (CT) and segmental reconstruction algorithm over a range of heart rates.

Materials and methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained. Informed consent was not required. Multi-detector row CT (500-msec rotation time, 8 x 1-mm detector collimation) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging were performed in 50 patients (28 men, 22 women; age range, 46-84 years; mean age, 67 years). Two-dimensional echocardiography was performed in 41 patients, and electrocardiographically (ECG)-gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) was performed in 27. End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), ejection fraction (EF), and left ventricular (LV) mass were estimated with multi-detector row CT and compared with values estimated with MR imaging, which served as the reference standard. Additionally, EF values estimated with multi-detector row CT, echocardiography, and SPECT were compared with those estimated with MR imaging. Systemic error and degree of agreement of global functional parameters measured with MR imaging and other modalities were assessed. In a second analysis, linear regression analysis was added.

Results: EF estimated with multi-detector row CT agreed and correlated well with EF estimated with MR imaging (bias +/- standard deviation, -1.2% +/- 4.6; r = 0.96). Agreement and correlation were similar for EDV (-0.35 mL +/- 15.2; r = 0.97), ESV (1.1 mL +/- 8.6; r = 0.99), and LV mass (2.5 mL +/- 15.0; r = 0.96). Standard deviation of EF difference between multi-detector row CT and MR imaging was significantly less than that between echocardiography and MR imaging (P < .001) or that between SPECT and MR imaging (P < .001).

Conclusion: Various LV functional parameters were measured with multi-detector row CT with a segmental approach, and measurements correlated and agreed with those obtained with MR imaging. Moreover, functional analysis with multi-detector row CT was more accurate than that with two-dimensional echocardiography or ECG-gated SPECT.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types