Quantification of left atrial function by the area-length method overestimates left atrial emptying fraction. Issue 160 (March 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Liu, Sophia Z.; Maroun, Anthony; Baraboo, Justin J.; DiCarlo, Amanda L.; Lee, Daniel C.; Heckbert, Susan R.; Passman, Rod; Markl, Michael; Greenland, Philip; Pradella, Maurice
• Is Part Of: European journal of radiology. Issue 160(2023)
• Publication Date: 2023-03
• Subjects: Cardiac MRI -- Biplane area-length method -- Left atrial volume -- Left atrial function -- Left atrial emptying fraction; CMR cardiac magnetic resonance imaging -- LA left atrial -- LAV left atrial volume -- LAEF left atrial emptying fraction -- MESA Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis -- SSFP steady-state free precession -- SAX short axis -- LAVmin minimum left atrial volume -- LAVmax maximum left atrial volume -- LAVpreA left atrial volume before atrial contraction; Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Radiologie médicale -- Périodiques; Medical radiology; Periodicals; 616.075705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110705
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0720-048X

Abstract

Graphical abstract: Abstract: Purpose: The biplane area-length method is commonly used in cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess left atrial (LA) volume (LAV) and function. Associations between left atrial emptying fraction (LAEF) and clinical outcomes have been reported. However, only limited data are available on the calculation of LAEF using the biplane method compared to 3D assessment. This study aimed to compare volumetric and functional LA parameters obtained from the biplane method with 3D assessment in a large, multiethnic cohort. Method: 158 participants of MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) underwent CMR that included standard two- and four-chamber steady-state free precession (SSFP) cine imaging for the biplane method. For 3D-based assessment, short-axis SSFP cine series covering the entire LA were obtained, followed by manual delineation of LA contours to create a time-resolved 3D LAV dataset. Paired t-tests and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyze the data. Results: Standard volumetric assessment showed that LAVmin (bias: −8.35 mL, p < 0.001), LAVmax (bias: −9.38 mL, p < 0.001) and LAVpreA (bias: −10.27 mL, p < 0.001) were significantly smaller using the biplane method compared to 3D assessment. Additionally, the biplane method reported significantly higher LAEFtotal (bias: 7.22 %, p < 0.001), LAEFactive (bias: 6.08 %, p < 0.001), and LAEFpassive (bias: 4.51 %, p < 0.001) with wide limits of agreement. Conclusions: LA volumes were underestimated using the biplane method compared to 3D assessment, while LAEF parameters were overestimated. These findings demonstrate a lack of precision using the biplane method for LAEF assessment. Our results support the usage of 3D assessment in specific settings when LA volumetric and functional parameters are in focus.