A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

MDCT determination of volume and function of the left ventricle: are short-axis image reformations necessary? | LitMetric

Objective: Determination of left ventricular (LV) volumes and global function parameters from MDCT data sets is usually based on short-axis reformations from primarily reconstructed axial images, which prolong postprocessing time. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of LV volumetry and global LV function assessment from axial images in comparison with short-axis image reformations.

Subjects And Methods: This study consisted of 20 patients with either coronary artery disease or dilated cardiomyopathy. We evaluated MDCT results using cine MRI as the reference technique.

Results: LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and end-systolic volume (LVESV) were significantly overestimated by the axial MDCT approach in comparison with volume measurements from short-axis CT image reformations. The mean LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was not significantly different (41.2% vs 42.7%). Short-axis and axial MDCT determination of LVEF revealed a systematic underestimation by a mean +/- SD of -2.1% +/- 3.6% versus -3.6% +/- 8.2%, respectively, when compared with LVEF values based on cine MRI. The interobserver variability for volume and function measurements from axial images (LVEDV = 8.5%, LVESV = 10.8%, LVEF = 9.6%) was slightly higher than those measurements from short-axis reformations (LVEDV = 7.2%, LVESV = 9.5%, LVEF = 8.7%). The mean total evaluation time was significantly shorter using axial images (14.1 +/- 3.9 min) compared with short-axis reformations (16.9 +/- 5.2 min) (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Determination of LV volumes and assessment of global LV function from axial MDCT image reformations is feasible and time efficient. This approach might be a clinically useful alternative to established short-axis-based measurements in patients with normal or near-normal LV function. A progressive underestimation of LVEF with increasing LV volumes may limit the clinical applicability of the axial approach in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1764DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

axial images
16
short-axis image
12
image reformations
12
global function
12
short-axis reformations
12
axial mdct
12
mdct determination
8
volume function
8
axial
8
dilated cardiomyopathy
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!