Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 30, 2026
Evaluation of Left Ventricular Structure and Function using 3D Echocardiography
Published on: October 28, 2020
Comparison of LV mass and volume measurements derived from electron beam tomography using cine imaging and
Songshou Mao1, Junichiro Takasu, Janis Child
1Department of Radiology, XiJing Hospital, Xi'an, China.
Insights
Electron beam tomography (EBT) cine and angiography provide comparable left ventricular (LV) mass and volume measurements. While EBT angiography may slightly underestimate LV volume and overestimate LV mass, both methods show good agreement for cardiac assessments.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Imaging
- Medical Physics
Background:
- Accurate measurement of left ventricular (LV) mass and volume is crucial for diagnosing and managing cardiovascular diseases.
- Electron beam tomography (EBT) offers high temporal and spatial resolution for cardiac imaging.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the accuracy and agreement of left ventricular (LV) mass and volume measurements using cine and angiography techniques with electron beam tomography (EBT).
Main Methods:
- Sixty-three patients underwent same-day cine and coronary artery electron beam angiography (EBA) studies.
- LV mass, cavity volume, and total LV volume were calculated using EBT software.
- Image acquisition involved different slice thicknesses and frame rates for cine and EBA.
Main Results:
- No significant differences were found between cine and EBA-derived LV measurements, though EBA showed slightly higher LV mass and total LV volume, and lower cavity volume.
- High correlations (R > 0.95) were observed between cine and EBA measurements for all parameters.
- Formulas were derived to convert measurements between the two modalities, with mean differences ranging from 6.5% to 18.2%.
Conclusions:
- Both cine and EBA imaging are effective for measuring LV mass and volume, demonstrating good inter-test agreement.
- Cine EBT studies may slightly underestimate LV mass and overestimate LV volume compared to EBA.
- The findings support the utility of EBT for reliable cardiac volume and mass assessment.
Purpose:
To estimate the variation of left ventricular (LV) mass and volume measurement with cine and angiography by electron beam tomography (EBT).
Method And Materials:
Sixty-three consecutive patients (41 men, 22 women; age range 46-91) referred for cardiac imaging for clinical indications underwent cine and coronary artery electron beam angiography (EBA) studies on the same day. The cine images consisted of 144 images (12 slices/level x 12 levels), taken 12 frames/s for a full cardiac cycle. The EBA images consisted of 50-70 slices triggered at end-systole, with an acquisition time of 100 ms/slice. Slice thickness was 8 mm for the cine images and 1.5 mm for the EBA images. A total volume of 120-180 ml of nonionic contrast was used for each subject. The LV mass (myocardial tissue volume), LV cavity volume and total LV volume (tissue + cavity) measurements were completed using the software from the EBT computer console (G.E., S. San Francisco, CA).
Results:
The LV mass, cavity volume and total LV volumes at end-systole were 124.11 g, 45.66 and 163.86 ml when derived from the cine images and 130.74 g, 41.31 and 165.82 ml when derived from the EBA images. There were no significant differences between the cine and EBA-derived measurements, however the EBA-derived measurements showed slightly larger LV mass (mean 6.63 g), smaller cavity volume (mean -4.35 ml) and larger total LV volume (mean 1.96 ml, all p > 0.05) than did the cine-derived measurements. Based on case-by-case observations, these differences appear to be related to the higher spatial resolution of the thinner EBA images which allows better discrimination between papillary and trabecular muscle and LV. This leads to slightly smaller cavity size estimations and greater LV mass measurements. There was significant correlation between cine and EBA-derived measurements. Formulas were developed for relating the measurements made from the two modalities as follows: For LV mass: EBA value = 0.91 x cine value + 17.09, R = 0.95, p < 0.001; For LV cavity volume: EBA value = 1.06 x cine value - 6.91, R = 0.96, p < 0.001; For total LV volume: EBA value = 0.98 x cine value + 5.09 in ml, p < 0.001. The mean differences in measurements using the two modalities were 8.1, 18.2 and 6.5% for LV mass, LV cavity volume and total LV volume, respectively.
Conclusion:
Both cine and EBA images were useful for measuring LV mass and volume with good intertest agreement. Cardiac volume and mass measurements derived from cine EBT studies probably slightly underestimate LV mass and overestimate LV volume.
