Skip to main content
Log in

Segmentation of cardiac magnetic resonance cine images of single ventricle: including or excluding the accessorial ventricle?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our aim was to compare two different approaches for segmentation of single ventricle (SV) on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) cine images. We retrospectively studied 30 consecutive patients (23 males; aged 27 ± 10 years) with a treated SV who underwent 1.5-T CMR using ECG-triggered axial true-FISP, HASTE and cine true-FISP sequences. We classified patients for visceroatrial situs, cardiac axis orientation, ventricular loop, morphology of SV and position of great arteries. One experienced reader segmented cine images twice, firstly including only the systemic ventricle, secondly including both systemic and accessorial ventricles. Ejection fraction (EF), indexed end-diastolic volume (EDVI), end-systolic volume (ESVI), and stroke volume (SVI) were calculated. Data were presented as medians and interquartile intervals. Four patients presented dextrocardia and one patient mesocardia. Two had situs ambiguus with asplenia and one situs ambiguus with polisplenia. Four patients showed right morphology of the SV and three levo-ventricle loop. We found 14 levo-trasposition of great arteries (TGA), 4 levo-malposition of great arteries (MGA), four dextro-MGA, two dextro-TGA, and one inverted vessel position. When segmenting only the systemic ventricle, EDVI (mL/m2) was 65 (50–91), when segmenting both ventricles 76 (58–110) (P < 0.001); ESVI (mL/m2) was 32 (24–45) and 45 (33–60), respectively (P < 0.001); EF (%) was 49 (43–57) and 33 (24–47), respectively (P = 0.003); SVI (mL/m2) was 34 (17–48) and 33 (24–47) (P = 0.070). The inclusion of the accessorial ventricle in the segmentation of SV produce a biased lower EF showing a very low contribution to the pump function.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hoffman JIE, Kaplan S (2002) The incidence of congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 39:1890–1900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Marelli AJ, Mackie AS, Ionescu-Ittu R et al (2007) Congenital heart disease in the general population: changing prevalence and age distribution. Circulation 115:163–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van der Hulst AE, Roest AA, Westenberg JJ et al (2012) Cardiac MRI in postoperative congenital heart disease patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:511–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fontan F, Baudet E (1971) Surgical repair of tricuspid atresia. Thorax 26:240–248

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Backer CL, Deal BJ, Kaushal S et al (2011) Extracardiac versus intra-atrial lateral tunnel Fontan: extracardiac is better. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu 14:4–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gersony WM (2008) Fontan operation after 3 decades: what we have learned. Circulation 117:13–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. d’Udekem Y, Iyengar AJ, Cochrane AD et al (2007) The Fontan procedure: contemporary techniques have improved long-term outcomes. Circulation 116:I157–I164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Manole S, Oprita S, Encica S et al (2012) Echocardiography and imaging investigation in congenital cardio-vascular anomalies—competition or complementarity? Part I: non-cyanogenic cardiovascular malformations. Med Ultrason 14:331–340

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Margossian R, Schwartz ML, Prakash A et al (2009) Comparison of echocardiographic and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging measurements of functional single ventricular volumes, mass, and ejection fraction (from the Pediatric Heart Network Fontan Cross-Sectional Study). Am J Cardiol 104:419–428

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cook SC, Raman SV (2008) Multidetector computed tomography in the adolescent and young adult with congenital heart disease. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2:36–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gherardi GG, Iball GR, Darby MJ et al (2011) Cardiac computed tomography and conventional angiography in the diagnosis of congenital cardiac disease in children: recent trends and radiation doses. Cardiol Young 21:616–622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pennell DJ, Sechtem UP, Higgins CB (2004) Clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR): consensus panel report. Eur Heart J 25:1940–1965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hendel 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/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 48:1475–1497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sardanelli F, Quarenghi M, Di Leo G et al (2008) Segmentation of cardiac cine MR images of left and right ventricles: interactive semiautomated methods and manual contouring by two readers with different education and experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 27:785–792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Secchi F, Di Leo G, Papini GD et al (2011) Cardiac magnetic resonance: impact on diagnosis and management of patients with congenital cardiovascular disease. Clin Radiol 66:720–725

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Secchi F, Giardino A, Nardella VG et al (2010) MRI and CT in the evaluation of congenital heart diseases. Pediatr Med Chir 32:260–269

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Alfakih K, Reid S, Jones T et al (2004) Assessment of ventricular function and mass by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 14:1813–1822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schallert EK, Danton GH, Kardon R et al (2013) Describing congenital heart disease by using three-part segmental notation. Radiographics 33:E33–E46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lapierre C, Déry J, Guérin R et al (2010) Segmental approach to imaging of congenital heart disease. Radiographics 30:397–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kilner PJ (2011) The role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in adults with congenital heart disease. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 54:295–304

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Broberg CS, Meadows A, Sahn D (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging images in adult congenital heart disease. Curr Probl Cardiol 36:228–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Deanfield J, Thaulow E, Warnes C et al (2003) Management of grown up congenital heart disease. Eur Heart J 24:1035–1084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Parra DA, Vera K (2012) New imaging modalities to assess cardiac function: not just pretty pictures. Curr Opin Pediatr 24:557–564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pennell DJ (2002) Ventricular volume and mass by CMR. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 4:507–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Geva T, Powell AJ, Crawford EC et al (1998) Evaluation of regional differences in right ventricular systolic function by acoustic quantification echocardiography and cine magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation 98:339–345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bodhey NK, Beerbaum P, Sarikouch S et al (2008) Functional analysis of the components of the right ventricle in the setting of tetralogy of Fallot. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 1:141–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Soriano BD, Hoch M, Ithuralde A et al (2008) Matrix-array 3-dimensional echocardiographic assessment of volumes, mass, and ejection fraction in young pediatric patients with a functional single ventricle: a comparison study with cardiac magnetic resonance. Circulation 117:1842–1848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Secchi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Secchi, F., Resta, E.C., Di Leo, G. et al. Segmentation of cardiac magnetic resonance cine images of single ventricle: including or excluding the accessorial ventricle?. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 30, 1117–1124 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-014-0438-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-014-0438-4

Keywords

Navigation