Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cardiac CT for Measurement of Right Ventricular Volume and Function in Comparison with Cardiac MRI: A Meta-Analysis

  • Jin Young Kim (Department of Radiology, Dongsan Hospital, Keimyung University College of Medicine) ;
  • Young Joo Suh (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kyunghwa Han (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Young Jin Kim (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Byoung Wook Choi (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2019.07.05
  • Accepted : 2019.12.16
  • Published : 2020.04.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the agreement of cardiac computed tomography (CT) with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) in the assessment of right ventricle (RV) volume and functional parameters. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were systematically searched for studies that compared CT with CMRI as the reference standard for measurement of the following RV parameters: end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), or ejection fraction (EF). Meta-analytic methods were utilized to determine the pooled weighted bias, limits of agreement (LOA), and correlation coefficient (r) between CT and CMRI. Heterogeneity was also assessed. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the probable factors affecting measurement of RV volume: CT contrast protocol, number of CT slices, CT reconstruction interval, CT volumetry, and segmentation methods. Results: A total of 766 patients from 20 studies were included. Pooled bias and LOA were 3.1 mL (-5.7 to 11.8 mL), 3.6 mL (-4.0 to 11.2 mL), -0.4 mL (5.7 to 5.0 mL), and -1.8% (-5.7 to 2.2%) for EDV, ESV, SV, and EF, respectively. Pooled correlation coefficients were very strong for the RV parameters (r = 0.87-0.93). Heterogeneity was observed in the studies (I2 > 50%, p < 0.1). In the subgroup analysis, an RV-dedicated contrast protocol, ≥ 64 CT slices, CT volumetry with the Simpson's method, and inclusion of the papillary muscle and trabeculation had a lower pooled bias and narrower LOA. Conclusion: Cardiac CT accurately measures RV volume and function, with an acceptable range of bias and LOA and strong correlation with CMRI findings. The RV-dedicated CT contrast protocol, ≥ 64 CT slices, and use of the same CT volumetry method as CMRI can improve agreement with CMRI.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We thank Na Won Kim, PhD (Yonsei University Medical Library) for her assistance in literature search.

References

  1. de Groote P, Millaire A, Foucher-Hossein C, Nugue O, Marchandise X, Ducloux G, et al. Right ventricular ejection fraction is an independent predictor of survival in patients with moderate heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:948-954 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(98)00337-4
  2. van Wolferen SA, Marcus JT, Boonstra A, Marques KM, Bronzwaer JG, Spreeuwenberg MD, et al. Prognostic value of right ventricular mass, volume, and function in idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J 2007;28:1250-1257 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehl477
  3. Knauth AL, Gauvreau K, Powell AJ, Landzberg MJ, Walsh EP, Lock JE, et al. Ventricular size and function assessed by cardiac MRI predict major adverse clinical outcomes late after tetralogy of Fallot repair. Heart 2008;94:211-216 https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2006.104745
  4. Marcus FI, McKenna WJ, Sherrill D, Basso C, Bauce B, Bluemke DA, et al. Diagnosis of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia: proposed modification of the Task Force Criteria. Eur Heart J 2010;31:806-814 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehq025
  5. Oosterhof T, van Straten A, Vliegen HW, Meijboom FJ, van Dijk AP, Spijkerboer AM, et al. Preoperative thresholds for pulmonary valve replacement in patients with corrected tetralogy of Fallot using cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Circulation 2007;116:545-551 https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.659664
  6. Sugeng L, Mor-Avi V, Weinert L, Niel J, Ebner C, Steringer-Mascherbauer R, et al. Multimodality comparison of quantitative volumetric analysis of the right ventricle. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:10-18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.09.017
  7. Abouzeid CM, Shah T, Johri A, Weinsaft JW, Kim J. Multimodality imaging of the right ventricle. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 2017;19:82
  8. Galea N, Carbone I, Cannata D, Cannavale G, Conti B, Galea R, et al. Right ventricular cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: normal anatomy and spectrum of pathological findings. Insights Imaging 2013;4:213-223 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-013-0222-3
  9. Prasad SK, Pennell DJ. Safety of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with cardiovascular implants and devices. Heart 2004;90:1241-1244 https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2003.021154
  10. Dupont MV, Dragean CA, Coche EE. Right ventricle function assessment by MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:77-86 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3801
  11. Koch K, Oellig F, Oberholzer K, Bender P, Kunz P, Mildenberger P, et al. Assessment of right ventricular function by 16-detector-row CT: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2005;15:312-318 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2543-6
  12. Lembcke A, Dohmen PM, Dewey M, Klessen C, Elgeti T, Hermann KG, et al. Multislice computed tomography for preoperative evaluation of right ventricular volumes and function: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;79:1344-1351 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.09.030
  13. Raman SV, Shah M, McCarthy B, Garcia A, Ferketich AK. Multi-detector row cardiac computed tomography accurately quantifies right and left ventricular size and function compared with cardiac magnetic resonance. Am Heart J 2006;151:736-744 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2005.04.029
  14. Raman SV, Cook SC, McCarthy B, Ferketich AK. Usefulness of multidetector row computed tomography to quantify right ventricular size and function in adults with either tetralogy of Fallot or transposition of the great arteries. Am J Cardiol 2005;95:683-686 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.11.014
  15. Plumhans C, Muhlenbruch G, Rapaee A, Sim KH, Seyfarth T, Gunther RW, et al. Assessment of global right ventricular function on 64-MDCT compared with MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:1358-1361 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3022
  16. Schroeder J, Peterschroeder A, Vaske B, Butz T, Barth P, Oldenburg O, et al. Cardiac volumetry in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a comparative study correlating multi-slice computed tomography and magnetic resonance tomography. Reasons for intermodal disagreement. Clin Res Cardiol 2009;98:739-747 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-009-0074-5
  17. Muller M, Teige F, Schnapauff D, Hamm B, Dewey M. Evaluation of right ventricular function with multidetector computed tomography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and analysis of inter- and intraobserver variability. Eur Radiol 2009;19:278-289 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1146-z
  18. Guo YK, Yang ZG, Shao H, Deng W, Ning G, Dong ZH. Right ventricular dysfunction and dilatation in patients with mitral regurgitation: analysis using ECG-gated multidetector row computed tomography. Int J Cardiol 2013;167:1585-1590 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.04.104
  19. Guo YK, Gao HL, Zhang XC, Wang QL, Yang ZG, Ma ES. Accuracy and reproducibility of assessing right ventricular function with 64-section multi-detector row CT: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Cardiol 2010;139:254-262 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2008.10.031
  20. Jensen CJ, Wolf A, Eberle HC, Forsting M, Nassenstein K, Lauenstein TC, et al. Accuracy and variability of right ventricular volumes and mass assessed by dual-source computed tomography: influence of slice orientation in comparison to magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2011;21:2492-2502 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2207-2
  21. Huang X, Pu X, Dou R, Guo X, Yan Z, Zhang Z, et al. Assessment of right ventricular function with 320-slice volume cardiac CT: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;28 Suppl 2:87-92 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-012-0156-8
  22. Takx RA, Moscariello A, Schoepf UJ, Barraza JM Jr, Nance JW Jr, Bastarrika G, et al. Quantification of left and right ventricular function and myocardial mass: comparison of low-radiation dose 2nd generation dual-source CT and cardiac MRI. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:e598-e604 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.07.001
  23. Lee H, Kim SY, Gebregziabher M, Hanna EL, Schoepf UJ. Impact of ventricular contrast medium attenuation on the accuracy of left and right ventricular function analysis at cardiac multi detector-row CT compared with cardiac MRI. Acad Radiol 2012;19:395-405 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2011.11.012
  24. Gao Y, Du X, Liang L, Cao L, Yang Q, Li K. Evaluation of right ventricular function by 64-row CT in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cor pulmonale. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:345-353 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.004
  25. Fuchs A, Kuhl JT, Lonborg J, Engstrom T, Vejlstrup N, Kober L, et al. Automated assessment of heart chamber volumes and function in patients with previous myocardial infarction using multidetector computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2012;6:325-334 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2012.01.006
  26. Zhang XC, Yang ZG, Guo YK, Zhang RM, Wang J, Zhou DQ, et al. Assessment of right ventricular function for patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis by 64-slice multi-detector row computed tomography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Chin Med J (Engl) 2012;125:1469-1474
  27. Yamasaki Y, Nagao M, Yamamura K, Yonezawa M, Matsuo Y, Kawanami S, et al. Quantitative assessment of right ventricular function and pulmonary regurgitation in surgically repaired tetralogy of Fallot using 256-slice CT: comparison with 3-tesla MRI. Eur Radiol 2014;24:3289-3299 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3344-1
  28. Maffei E, Messalli G, Martini C, Nieman K, Catalano O, Rossi A, et al. Left and right ventricle assessment with cardiac CT: validation study vs. cardiac MR. Eur Radiol 2012;22:1041-1049 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2345-6
  29. Wang L, Zhang Y, Yan C, He J, Xiong C, Zhao S, et al. Evaluation of right ventricular volume and ejection fraction by gated (18)F-FDG PET in patients with pulmonary hypertension: comparison with cardiac MRI and CT. J Nucl Cardiol 2013;20:242-252
  30. Freling HG, van Wijk K, Jaspers K, Pieper PG, Vermeulen KM, van Swieten JM, et al. Impact of right ventricular endocardial trabeculae on volumes and function assessed by CMR in patients with tetralogy of Fallot. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;29:625-631 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-012-0112-7
  31. Goo HW, Park SH. Semiautomatic three-dimensional CT ventricular volumetry in patients with congenital heart disease: agreement between two methods with different user interaction. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;31:223-232 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-015-0751-6
  32. Goo HW. Comparison between three-dimensional navigator-gated whole-heart MRI and two-dimensional cine MRI in quantifying ventricular volumes. Korean J Radiol 2018;19:704-714 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.704
  33. Han Y, Osborn EA, Maron MS, Manning WJ, Yeon SB. Impact of papillary and trabecular muscles on quantitative analyses of cardiac function in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;30:1197-1202 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21958
  34. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097
  35. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529-536 https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
  36. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177-188 https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
  37. Williamson PR, Lancaster GA, Craig JV, Smyth RL. Meta-analysis of method comparison studies. Stat Med 2002;21:2013-2025 https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1158
  38. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539-1558 https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
  39. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-634 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
  40. Kim KW, Lee J, Choi SH, Huh J, Park SH. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers-part I. General guidance and tips. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:1175-1187 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1175
  41. Schwarzer G. Meta: general package for meta-analysis. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/package=meta. Accessed March 15, 2019
  42. Pickett CA, Cheezum MK, Kassop D, Villines TC, Hulten EA. Accuracy of cardiac CT, radionucleotide and invasive ventriculography, two- and three-dimensional echocardiography, and SPECT for left and right ventricular ejection fraction compared with cardiac MRI: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;16:848-852 https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeu313
  43. Rudski LG, Lai WW, Afilalo J, Hua L, Handschumacher MD, Chandrasekaran K, et al. Guidelines for the echocardiographic assessment of the right heart in adults: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography endorsed by the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2010;23:685-713 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2010.05.010
  44. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, Afilalo J, Armstrong A, Ernande L, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;16:233-270 https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jev014
  45. Shimada YJ, Shiota M, Siegel RJ, Shiota T. Accuracy of right ventricular volumes and function determined by three-dimensional echocardiography in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2010;23:943-953 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2010.06.029
  46. Dill T. Contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging: noninvasive imaging. Heart 2008;94:943-948 https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2007.125039
  47. Rizvi A, Deano RC, Bachman DP, Xiong G, Min JK, Truong QA. Analysis of ventricular function by CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2015;9:1-12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2014.11.007
  48. Gopalan D. Right heart on multidetector CT. Br J Radiol 2011;84:S306-S323 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/59278996
  49. van Hamersvelt RW, Eijsvoogel NG, Mihl C, de Jong PA, Schilham AMR, Buls N, et al. Contrast agent concentration optimization in CTA using low tube voltage and dual-energy CT in multiple vendors: a phantom study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2018;34:1265-1275 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-018-1329-x
  50. Zhang W, Ba Z, Wang Z, Lv H, Zhao J, Zhang Y, et al. Diagnostic performance of low-radiation-dose and low-contrast-dose (double low-dose) coronary CT angiography for coronary artery stenosis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e11798
  51. Iyama Y, Nakaura T, Yokoyama K, Kidoh M, Harada K, Oda S, et al. Low-contrast and low-radiation dose protocol in cardiac computed tomography: usefulness of low tube voltage and knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction algorithm. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2016;40:941-947 https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000440
  52. Scholtz JE, Ghoshhajra B. Advances in cardiac CT contrast injection and acquisition protocols. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2017;7:439-451 https://doi.org/10.21037/cdt.2017.06.07
  53. Kerl JM, Ravenel JG, Nguyen SA, Suranyi P, Thilo C, Costello P, et al. Right heart: split-bolus injection of diluted contrast medium for visualization at coronary CT angiography. Radiology 2008;247:356-364 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2472070856
  54. Goo HW. Semiautomatic three-dimensional threshold-based cardiac computed tomography ventricular volumetry in repaired tetralogy of Fallot: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:102-113 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0237
  55. Weinsaft JW, Cham MD, Janik M, Min JK, Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Left ventricular papillary muscles and trabeculae are significant determinants of cardiac MRI volumetric measurements: effects on clinical standards in patients with advanced systolic dysfunction. Int J Cardiol 2008;126:359-365 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2007.04.179
  56. Park EA, Lee W, Kim HK, Chung JW. Effect of papillary muscles and trabeculae on left ventricular measurement using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:4-12 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2015.16.1.4