| 孟庆超,吴润泽,侯志辉,高扬,韩磊,吕滨.Simpson法、基于阈值区域生长法和三维模型法评估左心室功能[J].中国医学影像技术,2021,37(12):1830~1834 |
| Simpson法、基于阈值区域生长法和三维模型法评估左心室功能 |
| Simpson method, region growth method based on threshold and three-dimensional model method for assessing left ventricular function |
| 投稿时间：2020-07-11 修订日期：2021-09-24 |
| DOI：10.13929/j.issn.1003-3289.2021.12.017 |
| 中文关键词: 心室功能,左 体层摄影术,X线计算机 |
| 英文关键词:ventricular function, left tomography, X-ray computer |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1223 |
| 全文下载次数: 577 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 比较Simpson法、基于阈值的区域生长法（阈值法）和三维模型法（模型法）评估左心室功能的差异。方法 纳入60例因疑诊冠状动脉疾病而接受冠状动脉CT血管成像（CCTA）患者，分别采用Simpson法、阈值法和模型法计算左心室舒张末期容积（EDV）、收缩末期容积（ESV）和射血分数（EF），并观察各值差异。结果 模型法、阈值法和Simpson法的EDV分别为166.55（144.55，209.53）ml、144.25（126.25，186.88）ml和137.23（121.78，159.29）ml，ESV分别为55.53（38.34，80.83）ml、47.50（29.00，74.25）ml和46.10（28.68，67.63）ml，EF分别为64.75%（58.25%，72.35%）、69.15%（60.05%，76.33%）和66.70%（58.48%，77.05%）。以Simpson法、阈值法和模型法所获左心室EDV、ESV及EF差异均有统计学意义（P均<0.001）；以模型法所获EDV和ESV均明显高于阈值法和Simpson法（P均<0.05），而EF明显低于阈值法（P<0.05）。3种算法计算左心室EF的一致性均好，且阈值法与Simpson法所获左心室EDV及ESV差值均小于模型法与Simpson法（Z=-6.486、-6.574，P均<0.001）。3种算法所获左心室EDV、ESV及EF均呈极强相关（r均>0.8，P均<0.05）。结论 采用Simpson法、阈值法和模型法计算的左心室EDV、ESV及EF均有显著差异，但一致性均好，且EDV、ESV及EF均呈极强相关；以阈值法与Simpson法所获左心室EDV及ESV的差值均小于模型法与Simpson法差值。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare the difference of Simpson method, region growth method based on threshold (threshold method) and three-dimensional model method (model method) for assessing left ventricular function. Methods Sixty patients with suspected coronary artery disease who underwent coronary CT angiography (CCTA) were enrolled. The left ventricular end diastolic volume (EDV), end systolic volume (ESV) and ejection fraction (EF) were calculated with Simpson method, threshold method and model method, respectively, and the results of 3 methods were compared. Results EDV was 166.55 (144.55, 209.53)ml,144.25 (126.25, 186.88)ml and 137.23 (121.78, 159.29)ml respectively in model method, threshold method and Simpson method; ESV was 55.53 (38.34, 80.83)ml,47.50 (29.00, 74.25)ml and 46.10 (28.68, 67.63)ml; EF was 64.75% (58.25%, 72.35%),69.15% (60.05%, 76.33%) and 66.70% (58.48%, 77.05%). Significant differences of left ventricular EDV, ESV and EF calculated were found among the results of 3 methods (all P<0.001). Left ventricular EDV and ESV calculated with model method were significantly higher than those with threshold method and Simpson method (both P<0.05), while EF calculated with model method was significantly lower than that with threshold method (P<0.05). The consistencies of left ventricular EF calculated with 3 methods were all good, and the differences of left ventricular EDV and ESV between threshold method and Simpson method were both less than those between Simpson method and model method (Z=-6.486, -6.574, both P<0.001). EDV, ESV and EF calculated with 3 methods were all strong positively correlated (all r>0.8, all P<0.05). Conclusion Left ventricular EDV, ESV and EF calculated with Simpson method, threshold method and model method were significantly different, but the consistencies of 3 methods were all good. The differences of left ventricular EDV and ESV between threshold method and Simpson method were less than those between model method and Simpson method. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
