Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 30, 2026
11:13
Quantification of Mouse Heart Left Ventricular Function, Myocardial Strain, and Hemodynamic Forces by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published on: May 24, 2021
8.4K
Comparing left ventricular ejection fraction measurement using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging
Radiologic Technology
|May 9, 2014
Summary
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging with a semiautomated technique accurately measures left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), comparable to MUGA scans. In-line automated tracking underestimates LVEF, potentially leading to dangerous treatment decisions.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular imaging
- Cardiac function assessment
- Medical diagnostics
Background:
- Accurate measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is crucial for diagnosing and managing cardiac conditions.
- Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging offers advanced visualization of cardiac structures and function.
- Comparison with established methods like multiple-gated acquisition (MUGA) scans is essential for validating new techniques.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate and compare the accuracy of different CMR imaging techniques for LVEF measurement.
- Specifically, to compare in-line tracking, a semiautomatic technique, and manual drawing against MUGA scans.
Main Methods:
- Thirty patients underwent LVEF assessment using three CMR imaging methods: in-line automated tracking, semiautomatic technique (in-line automated with manual adjustment), and manual contouring.
- All patients subsequently underwent a MUGA scan for comparative analysis.
- Statistical analysis, including repeated analysis of variance, was used to compare LVEF measurements and identify significant differences (P < .05).
Main Results:
- Mean LVEF by CMR in-line automated tracking was 52.9% (SD 8.5), significantly lower than MUGA (64.4%, SD 8.4).
- Semiautomatic (62.3%, SD 8.1) and manual (62.2%, SD 7.8) CMR techniques showed LVEF values comparable to MUGA.
- In-line automated tracking resulted in statistically significant underestimation of LVEF compared to MUGA and other CMR methods (P < .01).
Conclusions:
- In-line automated tracking in CMR imaging overestimates end-systolic volume, leading to inaccurate LVEF underestimation.
- This inaccuracy poses a risk, potentially leading to incorrect treatment decisions and unnecessary discontinuation of cardiac medications.
- The semiautomated CMR technique, with manual adjustments, is time-efficient and provides LVEF measurements comparable to MUGA scans.
