4.7 Article

Quantitative myocardial infarction on delayed enhancement MRI. Part I: Animal validation of an automated feature analysis and combined thresholding infarct sizing algorithm

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 298-308

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20496

Keywords

myocardial infarction; magnetic resonance imaging; computer algorithm; image processing; expert system; contrast agent; gadolinium

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To develop a computer algorithm to measure myocardial infarct size in gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and to validate this method using a canine histopathological reference. Materials and Methods: Delayed enhancement MR was performed in 11 dogs with myocardial infarction (MI) determined by triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC). Infarct size on in vivo and ex vivo images was measured by a computer algorithm based on automated feature analysis and combined thresholding (FACT). For comparison, infarct size by human manual contouring and simple intensity thresholding (based on two standard deviation [2SD] and full width at half maximum [FWHM]) were studied. Results: Both in vivo and ex vivo MR infarct size measured by the FACT algorithm correlated well with TTC (R = 0.95-0.97) and showed no significant bias on Bland Altman analysis (P = not significant). Despite similar cor-relations (R = 0.91-0.97), human manual contouring overestimated in vivo MR infarct size by 5.4% of the left ventricular [LV] area (equivalent to 55.1% of the MI area) vs. TTC (P < 0.001). Infarct size measured by simple intensity thresholdings was less accurate than the proposed algorithm (P < 0.001 and P = 0.007). Conclusion: The FACT algorithm accurately measured MI size on delayed enhancement MR imaging in vivo and ex vivo. The FACT algorithm was also more accurate than human manual contouring and simple intensity thresholding approaches.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available