Advertisement

Defining the Role and Benefits of a 3D Laboratory for Cardiovascular CT

  • Laura J. Pierce
  • Daniel T. Boll
  • Geoffrey D. RubinEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Medical Imaging book series (CMI)

Abstract

Post-processing CT images is mandatory for all but the most basic of cardiac CT acquisitions. While the interpreting physician should always assess the images using an interface that provides ready access to multiplanar reformations, maximum intensity projections, curved planar reformations, volume renderings, and measurement tools, a 3D laboratory is a key adjunct for an effective workflow. Staffed by technologists with administrative support, 3D laboratories offer consistent, high-quality image and measurement preparations and archive. They provide a reliable interface with referring physicians and are better positioned to address special processing needs as they might arise. By serving as the primary resource for creating archival images for cardiac CT exams, they off-load work from interpreting radiologists and cardiologists, allowing them to shift their focus away from record keeping and increase their focus on the interpretation of imaging studies.

Keywords

3D laboratory for cardiovascular CT CT post-processing Post-processing in cardiac CT 3D imaging for cardiac research Multidimensionality imaging data Cardiac imaging data in 3D 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kramer CM, Budoff MJ, Fayad ZA, et al. ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical competence statement on vascular imaging with computed tomography and magnetic resonance. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1097–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boll DT. Affinity chart analysis: a method for structured collection, aggregation, and response to customer needs in radiology. Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Apr;208(4):W134–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ACR–NASCI–SPR practice parameter for the performance and interpretation of cardiac computed tomography (CT). Amended 2016 (Resolution 21). Accessed 21 Nov 2016.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cayne NS, Veith FJ, Lipsitz EC, et al. Variability of maximal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements on CT scan: significance and methods to minimize. J Vasc Surg. 2004;39:811–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Physician supervision of diagnostic tests. In: cms.gov; 2001. Accessed 15 Jul 2016.
  6. 6.
    Rengier F, Mehndiratta A, Tengg-Kobligk von H, Zechmann CM, Unterhinninghofen R, Kauczor H-U, Giesel FL. 3D printing based on imaging data: review of medical applications. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2010;5:335–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Center for Devices, Radiological Health, Center for Biologics Evaluation, Research. Guidance documents (medical devices and radiation-emitting products) – general principles of software validation; Final guidance for industry and FDA staff; 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pierce L, Raman K, Rosenberg J, Rubin GD. Quality Improvement in 3D Imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:150–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Budoff MJ, Cohen MC, Garcia MJ, et al. ACCF/AHA clinical competence statement on cardiac imaging with computed tomography and magnetic resonance: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura J. Pierce
    • 1
  • Daniel T. Boll
    • 2
  • Geoffrey D. Rubin
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyDuke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations