Myocardial Extracellular Volume Quantification Using Cardiac Computed Tomography: A Comparison of the Dual-energy Iodine Method and the Standard Subtraction Method

Rationale and Objectives

To clarify the accuracy of two measurement methods for myocardial extracellular volume (ECV) quantification (ie, the standard subtraction method [ECV_sub] and the dual-energy iodine method [ECV_iodine]) with the use of cardiac CT in comparison to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) as a reference standard.

Materials and Methods

Equilibrium phase cardiac images of 21 patients were acquired with a dual-layer spectral detector CT and CMR, and the images were retrospectively analyzed. CT-ECV was calculated using ECV_sub and ECV_iodine. The correlation between the ECV values measured by each method was assessed. Bland-Altman analysis was used to identify systematic errors and to determine the limits of agreement between the CT-ECV and CMR-ECV values. Root mean squared errors and residual values for the ECV_sub and ECV_iodine were also assessed.

Results

The correlations between ECV_sub and ECV_iodine for both septal and global measurement were r = 0.95 (p < 0.01) and 0.91 (p < 0.01), respectively, while those between the mean ECV_sub and CMR-ECV were r = 0.90 (septal, p < 0.01) and 0.84 (global, p < 0.01), and those between ECV_iodine and CMR-ECV were r = 0.94 (septal, p < 0.01) and 0.95 (global, p < 0.01). Bland-Altman plots showed lower 95% limits of agreement between ECV_iodine and CMR-ECV compared with that between ECV_sub and CMR-ECV in both septal and global measurement. The root mean squared error of ECV_sub was higher than that of ECV_iodine. The mean residual value of ECV_sub was significantly higher than that of ECV_iodine.

Conclusion

ECV_iodine yielded more accurate myocardial ECV quantification than ECV_sub, and provided a comparable ECV value to that obtained by CMR.