Creating three dimensional models of the right ventricular outflow tract: influence of contrast, sequence, operator, and threshold

Barbara E.U. Burkhardt, Nicholas K. Brown, Jaclyn E. Carberry, Marí Nieves Velasco Forte, Nicholas Byrne, Franz G Greil, Mohammad T Hussain, Animesh Tandon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The use of 3D printed models of the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) for surgical and interventional planning is growing and often requires image segmentation of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) images. Segmentation results may vary based on contrast, image sequence, signal threshold chosen by the operator, and manual post-processing. The purpose of this study was to determine potential biases and post-processing errors in image segmentation to enable informed decisions. Models of the RVOT and pulmonary arteries from twelve patients who had contrast enhanced CMR angiography with gadopentetate dimeglumine (GPD), gadofosveset trisodium (GFT), and a post-GFT inversion-recovery (IR) whole heart sequence were segmented, trimmed, and aligned by three operators. Geometric agreement and minimal RVOT diameters were compared between sequences and operators. To determine the contribution of threshold, interoperator variability was compared between models created by the same two operators using the same versus different thresholds. Geometric agreement by Dice between objects was high (intraoperator: 0.89–0.95; interoperator: 0.95–0.97), without differences between sequences. Minimal RVOT diameters differed on average by − 1.9 to − 1.3 mm (intraoperator) and by 0.4 to 1.4 mm (interoperator). The contribution of threshold to interoperator geometric agreement was not significant (same threshold: 0.96 ± 0.06, different threshold: 0.93 ± 0.05; p = 0.181), but minimal RVOT diameters were more variable with different versus constant thresholds (− 9.12% vs. 2.42%; p < 0.05). Thresholding does not significantly change interoperator variability for geometric agreement, but does for minimal RVOT diameter. Minimal RVOT diameters showed clinically relevant variation within and between operators.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalInternational Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Gadolinium DTPA
Magnetic Resonance Angiography
Protein Sorting Signals
Pulmonary Artery
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
gadofosveset trisodium

Keywords

  • 3D model
  • Contrast agent
  • Image interpretation
  • Magnetic resonance angiography
  • Structural heart disease
  • Volume rendering

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Creating three dimensional models of the right ventricular outflow tract : influence of contrast, sequence, operator, and threshold. / Burkhardt, Barbara E.U.; Brown, Nicholas K.; Carberry, Jaclyn E.; Velasco Forte, Marí Nieves; Byrne, Nicholas; Greil, Franz G; Hussain, Mohammad T; Tandon, Animesh.

In: International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{91630eddf4974e7c8857ccf96358fc91,
title = "Creating three dimensional models of the right ventricular outflow tract: influence of contrast, sequence, operator, and threshold",
abstract = "The use of 3D printed models of the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) for surgical and interventional planning is growing and often requires image segmentation of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) images. Segmentation results may vary based on contrast, image sequence, signal threshold chosen by the operator, and manual post-processing. The purpose of this study was to determine potential biases and post-processing errors in image segmentation to enable informed decisions. Models of the RVOT and pulmonary arteries from twelve patients who had contrast enhanced CMR angiography with gadopentetate dimeglumine (GPD), gadofosveset trisodium (GFT), and a post-GFT inversion-recovery (IR) whole heart sequence were segmented, trimmed, and aligned by three operators. Geometric agreement and minimal RVOT diameters were compared between sequences and operators. To determine the contribution of threshold, interoperator variability was compared between models created by the same two operators using the same versus different thresholds. Geometric agreement by Dice between objects was high (intraoperator: 0.89–0.95; interoperator: 0.95–0.97), without differences between sequences. Minimal RVOT diameters differed on average by − 1.9 to − 1.3 mm (intraoperator) and by 0.4 to 1.4 mm (interoperator). The contribution of threshold to interoperator geometric agreement was not significant (same threshold: 0.96 ± 0.06, different threshold: 0.93 ± 0.05; p = 0.181), but minimal RVOT diameters were more variable with different versus constant thresholds (− 9.12{\%} vs. 2.42{\%}; p < 0.05). Thresholding does not significantly change interoperator variability for geometric agreement, but does for minimal RVOT diameter. Minimal RVOT diameters showed clinically relevant variation within and between operators.",
keywords = "3D model, Contrast agent, Image interpretation, Magnetic resonance angiography, Structural heart disease, Volume rendering",
author = "Burkhardt, {Barbara E.U.} and Brown, {Nicholas K.} and Carberry, {Jaclyn E.} and {Velasco Forte}, {Mar{\'i} Nieves} and Nicholas Byrne and Greil, {Franz G} and Hussain, {Mohammad T} and Animesh Tandon",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10554-019-01646-1",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging",
issn = "1569-5794",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Creating three dimensional models of the right ventricular outflow tract

T2 - influence of contrast, sequence, operator, and threshold

AU - Burkhardt, Barbara E.U.

AU - Brown, Nicholas K.

AU - Carberry, Jaclyn E.

AU - Velasco Forte, Marí Nieves

AU - Byrne, Nicholas

AU - Greil, Franz G

AU - Hussain, Mohammad T

AU - Tandon, Animesh

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - The use of 3D printed models of the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) for surgical and interventional planning is growing and often requires image segmentation of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) images. Segmentation results may vary based on contrast, image sequence, signal threshold chosen by the operator, and manual post-processing. The purpose of this study was to determine potential biases and post-processing errors in image segmentation to enable informed decisions. Models of the RVOT and pulmonary arteries from twelve patients who had contrast enhanced CMR angiography with gadopentetate dimeglumine (GPD), gadofosveset trisodium (GFT), and a post-GFT inversion-recovery (IR) whole heart sequence were segmented, trimmed, and aligned by three operators. Geometric agreement and minimal RVOT diameters were compared between sequences and operators. To determine the contribution of threshold, interoperator variability was compared between models created by the same two operators using the same versus different thresholds. Geometric agreement by Dice between objects was high (intraoperator: 0.89–0.95; interoperator: 0.95–0.97), without differences between sequences. Minimal RVOT diameters differed on average by − 1.9 to − 1.3 mm (intraoperator) and by 0.4 to 1.4 mm (interoperator). The contribution of threshold to interoperator geometric agreement was not significant (same threshold: 0.96 ± 0.06, different threshold: 0.93 ± 0.05; p = 0.181), but minimal RVOT diameters were more variable with different versus constant thresholds (− 9.12% vs. 2.42%; p < 0.05). Thresholding does not significantly change interoperator variability for geometric agreement, but does for minimal RVOT diameter. Minimal RVOT diameters showed clinically relevant variation within and between operators.

AB - The use of 3D printed models of the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) for surgical and interventional planning is growing and often requires image segmentation of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) images. Segmentation results may vary based on contrast, image sequence, signal threshold chosen by the operator, and manual post-processing. The purpose of this study was to determine potential biases and post-processing errors in image segmentation to enable informed decisions. Models of the RVOT and pulmonary arteries from twelve patients who had contrast enhanced CMR angiography with gadopentetate dimeglumine (GPD), gadofosveset trisodium (GFT), and a post-GFT inversion-recovery (IR) whole heart sequence were segmented, trimmed, and aligned by three operators. Geometric agreement and minimal RVOT diameters were compared between sequences and operators. To determine the contribution of threshold, interoperator variability was compared between models created by the same two operators using the same versus different thresholds. Geometric agreement by Dice between objects was high (intraoperator: 0.89–0.95; interoperator: 0.95–0.97), without differences between sequences. Minimal RVOT diameters differed on average by − 1.9 to − 1.3 mm (intraoperator) and by 0.4 to 1.4 mm (interoperator). The contribution of threshold to interoperator geometric agreement was not significant (same threshold: 0.96 ± 0.06, different threshold: 0.93 ± 0.05; p = 0.181), but minimal RVOT diameters were more variable with different versus constant thresholds (− 9.12% vs. 2.42%; p < 0.05). Thresholding does not significantly change interoperator variability for geometric agreement, but does for minimal RVOT diameter. Minimal RVOT diameters showed clinically relevant variation within and between operators.

KW - 3D model

KW - Contrast agent

KW - Image interpretation

KW - Magnetic resonance angiography

KW - Structural heart disease

KW - Volume rendering

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067700715&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067700715&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10554-019-01646-1

DO - 10.1007/s10554-019-01646-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 31203535

AN - SCOPUS:85067700715

JO - International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging

JF - International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging

SN - 1569-5794

ER -