Evaluation of Left Ventricular Function by 64-Multidetector Computed Tomography in Patients Undergoing Totally Endoscopic Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1532/HSF98.20081046Abstract
Objectives: The goal of this study was to quantify left ventricular (LV) function with automated 3-dimensional volume segmentation by 64-slice computed tomography (CT) in patients undergoing totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
Methods: We used 64-multidetector CT coronary angiography to examine 63 patients with >70% coronary stenosis who were undergoing totally endoscopic CABG for single-vessel disease (left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending coronary artery) or multivessel disease with the da Vinci robotic surgical device (arrested heart approach). CT measurements were compared with cineventriculography results in 20 patients.
Results: The intraobserver variability values for the end-systolic volume (ESV) and the end-diastolic volume (EDV) were excellent (7.2% and 5.2%, respectively). Bland-Altman plots showed good upper and lower limits of agreement (ESV, +9% and -3.3%, respectively; EDV, +17% and -5.9%). Intraobserver variability for the LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was 4.8% with narrow limits of agreement (+7.8%, -2.2%). The mean postprocessing time was 6.5 minutes. Mean values (±SD) were 62.7% ± 12% (range, 23%-86%) for LVEF, 98.4 mL ± 29 mL for EDV, and 38.3 mL ± 23 mL for ESV. The LVEF obtained via CT was moderately but significantly correlated with the invasive cineventriculogram (r = 0.51; P = .02; limits of agreement, +18.7% and -18.4%).
Conclusion:. Through the use of automated LV volume segmentation, 64-slice CT permits fast quantification of LV function in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing totally endoscopic CABG grafting, enabling a comprehensive evaluation of coronary arteries and bypass grafts.
References
Anders K, Baum U, Schmid M, et al. 2006. Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) patency: assessment with high-resolution submillimeter 16-slice multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) versus coronary angiography. Eur J Radiol 57:336-44.nArgenziano M, Katz M, Bonatti J, et al. 2006. Results of the prospective multicenter trial of robotically assisted totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 81:1666-74.nBartel T, Müller S. 2007. Echocardiography. 1st ed. Munich, Germany: Elsevier Science Urban & Fischer. p 213-30.nBelge B, Coche E, Pasquet A, Vanoverschelde JL, Gerber BL. 2006. Accurate estimation of global and regional cardiac function by retrospectively gated multidetector row computed tomography: comparison with cine magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 16:1424-33.nBland JM, Altman DG. 1986. Statistical methods for assessing the agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307-10.nBland JM, Altman DG. 1999. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135-60.nButler J, Shapiro MD, Jassal D, et al. 2007. Comparison of multidetector computed tomography and two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography for left ventricular assessment in patients with heart failure. Am J Cardiol 99:247-9.nCademartiri F, Nieman K, van der Lugt A, et al. 2004. Intravenous contrast material administration at 16-detector row helical CT coronary angiography: test bolus versus bolus-tracking technique. Radiology 233:817-23.nDewey M, Müller M, Eddicks S, et al. 2006. Evaluation of global and regional left ventricular function with 16-slice computed tomography, biplane cineventriculography, and two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:2034-44.nEagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, et al. 2004. ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery). Circulation 110:e340-437.nFerencik M, Gregory SA, Butler J, et al. 2007. Analysis of cardiac dimensions, mass and function in heart transplant recipients using 64-slice multi-detector computed tomography. J Heart Lung Transplant 26:478-84.nFeuchtner GM, Schachner T, Bonatti J et al. 2007. Diagnostic performance of 64-slice computed tomography for evaluation of coronary bypass grafts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:574-80.nFeuchtner G, Schachner T, Junker D, et al. 2007. Multislice computed tomography for preoperative and postoperative assessment in totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. Heart Surg Forum 10:E243-7.nHausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, et al. 2006. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice: impact of different scanning protocols on effective dose estimates. Circulation 113:1305-10.nHendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM, et al. 2006. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:1475-97.nJenkins C, Bricknell K, Chan J, Hanekom L, Marwick TH. 2007. Comparison of two- and three-dimensional echocardiography with sequential magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating left ventricular volume and ejection fraction over time in patients with healed myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 99:300-6.nMahnken AH, Koos R, Katoh M, et al. 2005. Sixteen-slice spiral CT versus MR imaging for the assessment of left ventricular function in acute myocardial infarction. Eur Radiol 15:714-20.nMartuscelli E, Romagnoli A, D'Eliseo A, et al. 2004. Evaluation of venous and arterial conduit patency by 16-slice spiral computed tomography. Circulation 110:3234-8.nMühlenbruch G, Das M, Hohl C, et al. 2006. Global left ventricular function in cardiac CT: evaluation of an automated 3D region-growing segmentation algorithm. Eur Radiol 16:1117-23.nSchachner T, Feuchtner G, Bonatti J, et al. 2007. Evaluation of robotic coronary surgery with intraoperative graft angiography and multislice computed tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 83:1361-7.nSchiller NB. 1991. Two-dimensional echocardiographic determination of left ventricular volume, systolic function, and mass: summary and discussion of the 1989 recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography. Circulation 84(3 Suppl):I280-7.nSchlosser T, Mohrs OK, Magedanz A, Voigtländer T, Schmermund A, Barkhausen J. 2007. Assessment of left ventricular function and mass in patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography using 64-detector-row CT: comparison to magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Radiol 48:30-5.nWu YW, Tadamura E, Kanao S, et al. 2007. Left ventricular functional analysis using 64-slice multidetector row computed tomography: comparison with left ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Cardiology 109:135-42.n
