Trial reportBMC medical imaging2016
Automatic segmentation of myocardium at risk from contrast enhanced SSFP CMR: validation against expert readers and SPECT.
Trial report in BMC medical imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Phase II, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo Controlled Study to Assess Safety and Efficacy of TRO40303 for Reduction of Reperfusion Injury in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction
Rapid Endovascular Catheter Core Cooling Combined With Cold Saline as an Adjunct to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention For the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrospective assessment of at-risk myocardium in reperfused acute myocardial infarction patients using contrast-enhanced balanced steady-state free-precession cardiovascular magnetic resonance at 3T with SPECT validation.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2021Article
- Validation of contrast enhanced cine steady-state free precession and T2-weighted CMR for assessment of ischemic myocardial area-at-risk in the presence of reperfusion injury.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019Article
- Quantification of myocardium at risk in ST- elevation myocardial infarction: a comparison of contrast-enhanced steady-state free precession cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance with coronary angiographic jeopardy scores.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2017Article
- Automatic high-resolution infarct detection using volumetric multiphase dual-energy CT.Journal of cardiovascular computed tomographyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEfficacy of reperfusion therapy can be assessed as myocardial salvage index (MSI) by determining the size of myocardium at risk (MaR) and myocardial infarction (MI), (MSI = 1-MI/MaR). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) can be used to assess MI by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and MaR by either T2-weighted imaging or contrast enhanced SSFP (CE-SSFP). Automatic segmentation algorithms have been developed and validated for MI by LGE as well as for MaR by T2-weighted imaging. There are, however, no algorithms available for CE-SSFP. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and validate automatic segmentation of MaR in CE-SSFP.
methodsThe automatic algorithm applies surface coil intensity correction and classifies myocardial intensities by Expectation Maximization to define a MaR region based on a priori regional criteria, and infarct region from LGE. Automatic segmentation was validated against manual delineation by expert readers in 183 patients with reperfused acute MI from two multi-center randomized clinical trials (RCT) (CHILL-MI and MITOCARE) and against myocardial perfusion SPECT in an additional set (n = 16). Endocardial and epicardial borders were manually delineated at end-diastole and end-systole. Manual delineation of MaR was used as reference and inter-observer variability was assessed for both manual delineation and automatic segmentation of MaR in a subset of patients (n = 15). MaR was expressed as percent of left ventricular mass (%LVM) and analyzed by bias (mean ± standard deviation). Regional agreement was analyzed by Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) (mean ± standard deviation).
resultsMaR assessed by manual and automatic segmentation were 36 ± 10% and 37 ± 11%LVM respectively with bias 1 ± 6%LVM and regional agreement DSC 0.85 ± 0.08 (n = 183). MaR assessed by SPECT and CE-SSFP automatic segmentation were 27 ± 10%LVM and 29 ± 7%LVM respectively with bias 2 ± 7%LVM. Inter-observer variability was 0 ± 3%LVM for manual delineation and -1 ± 2%LVM for automatic segmentation.
conclusionsAutomatic segmentation of MaR in CE-SSFP was validated against manual delineation in multi-center, multi-vendor studies with low bias and high regional agreement. Bias and variability was similar to inter-observer variability of manual delineation and inter-observer variability was decreased by automatic segmentation. Thus, the proposed automatic segmentation can be used to reduce subjectivity in quantification of MaR in RCT. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT01379261. NCT01374321.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.