- Walking poster presentation
- Open Access
Would adding two left atrial piloted images to a cardiac magnetic resonance protocol enable rapid, accurate calculation of left atrial volume? Use of 320 slice cardiac CT as proof of concept.
© Nerlerkarrlerkar and Moir 2016
- Published: 27 January 2016
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance
- Accurate Calculation
- Left Atrial Volume
- Chamber View
- Blinded Observer
Left atrial volume (LAV) is an important prognostic predictor in cardiac disease. LAV is not routinely evaluated by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as acquisition of a full volume dataset is time consuming, and previous authors have shown calculation of LAV using the biplane area-length method (BAL) from routinely acquired 4 and 2 chamber views (4CV, 2CV) significantly underestimates true volume. We hypothesized this underestimation was due to standard CMR 4CV and 2CV images (piloted from mid mitral valve to LV apex - LV piloting) foreshortening the atrium, and that additional 4CV and 2CV images piloted from mid mitral valve to the mid posterior wall of the left atrium (LA piloting) would enable rapid, accurate calculation of LAV using BAL.
We evaluated 3-D datasets from 44 consecutive patients undergoing retrospective 320 slice cardiac computed tomographic studies. True 3-D left atrial volume (gold standard) was calculated at end systole by a blinded observer excluding pulmonary veins and left atrial appendage. A second blinded observer manipulated images to create standard ‘CMR' 4 and 2 chamber views piloted from mid mitral valve to LV apex (standard LV piloted) enabling measurement of LAV using BAL. The dataset was then manipulated / 're-piloted' from mid mitral valve to the middle of posterior LA (LA piloted) and LAV was re-measured - see figure.
As previously shown, LAVI calculated with BAL from LV piloted 4CV and 2CV images significantly underestimates true LAV (see table). Mean LAV calculated from LA piloted images was not significantly different from true LA volume and there was a strong correlation between the 2 with narrow confidence intervals.
Mean ± SD (ml)
95% Confidence Interval
Correlation to 3D LAV (r-value)
Mean difference comparison to 3D-LAV (paired t-test p value)
3-D LA volume
82 ± 24
LV piloted LA volume
67 ± 28
LA piloted LA volume
81 ± 27
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.