CT of Cardiac Function and Wall Motion

  • Prabhakar Rajiah
  • Suhny AbbaraEmail author
Part of the Contemporary Medical Imaging book series (CMI)


Functional evaluation is an important component of cardiovascular imaging, contributing to diagnosis, management, and prognosis. Echocardiography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) are the most commonly used techniques for cardiac functional evaluation. Cardiac CT, which is primarily used in the evaluation of coronary arteries, is a reliable alternative in the evaluation of cardiac function, particularly in circumstances where echocardiography does not provide adequate information or CMR cannot be performed due to contraindications or artifacts. Functional evaluation with cardiac CT requires retrospective ECG gating, which allows reconstruction of multiple phases of the cardiac cycle. Cine images can then be reconstructed in multiple planes which are used for qualitative assessment of global and regional cardiac function. Quantification of ventricular volumes, mass, and function can be obtained by either drawing endocardial and epicardial contours or using threshold-based segmentation technique in end-diastolic and end-systolic phases. Global and regional ventricular functional abnormalities are seen in a variety of cardiomyopathies, including ischemic heart disease, nonischemic cardiomyopathies, pulmonary embolism, and congenital heart diseases. CT quantification of the left atrial volumes and function can also be performed in atrial fibrillation and mitral disease. In this chapter, we review the role and technique of CT in the evaluation of ventricular and atrial function.


USW wall motion and cardiac function Ventricles Atrium Global cardiac function Regional cardiac wall motion 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hammermeister KE, DeRouen TA, Dodge HT. Variables predictive of survival in patients with coronary disease. Selection by univariate and multivariate analyses from the clinical, electrocardiographic, exercise, arteriographic, and quantitative angiographic evaluations. Circulation. 1979;59(3):421–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mock MB, Ringquist I, Fisher LD, et al. Survival of medically treated patients in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS) registry. Circulation. 1982;66:562–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sayyed SH, Cassidy MM, Hadi MA. Use of multidetector computed tomography for evaluation of global and regional left ventricular function. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3(S1):S23–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Setser RM, Eischer SE, Lorenz CH. Quantification of left ventricular function with magnetic resonance images acquired in real time. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12:430–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Geus-Oei LF, Mavinkurve-Groothuis AM, Bellerson L, et al. Scintigraphic techniques for early detection of cancer treatment-induced cardiotoxicity. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(4):560–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slart RH, Bax JJ, de Jong RM, et al. Comparison of gated PET with MRI for evaluation of left ventricular function in patients with coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(2):176–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bavelaar-Croon CD, Kayser HW, van der Wall EE, et al. Left ventricular function: correlation of quantitative gated SPECT and MR imaging over a wide range of values. Radiology. 2000;217(2):572–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bodenheimer MMBV, Fooshee CM, Hermann GA, et al. Comparison of wall motion and regional ejection fraction at rest and during isometric exercise: concise communication. J Nucl Med. 1979;20:724–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stollfuss JC, Haas F, Matsunari I, et al. Regional myocardial wall thickening and global ejection fraction in patients with low angiographic left ventricular ejection fraction assessed by visual and quantitative resting ECG-gated 99mTc-tetrofosmin single-photon emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25(5):522–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM, et al. ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(22):1864–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Savino G, Zwerner P, Herzog C, et al. CT of cardiac function. J Thorac Imaging. 2007;22:86–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ritchie C, Godwin J, Crawford C, et al. Minimum scan speeds for suppression of motion artifacts in CT. Radiology. 1992;185:37–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Port S, Cobb FR, Jones RH. Effects of propranolol on left ventricular function in normal men. Circulation. 1989;61(12):358–66.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mo YH, Jaw FS, Wang YC, et al. Effects of propranolol on the left ventricular volume of normal subjects during CT coronary angiography. Korean J Radiol. 2011;12(3):319.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dell'Italia LJ, Walsh RA. Effect of intravenous metoprolol on left ventricular performance in Q-wave acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1989;63(3):166–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jensen CJ, Jochims M, Hunold P, et al. Assessment of left ventricular function and mass in dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography: influence of beta-blockers on left ventricular function: comparison to magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2010;74(3):484–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee H, Kim SY, Gebregziabher M, et al. Impact of ventricular contrast medium attenuation on the accuracy of left and right ventricular function analysis at cardiac multi detector-row CT compared with cardiac MRI. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(4):395–405.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gao Y, Du X, Liang L, et al. Evaluation of right ventricular function by 64-row CT in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cor pulmonale. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(2):345–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cademartiri F, Nieman K, van der Lugt A, et al. Intravenous contrast material administration at 16-detector row helical CT coronary angiography: test bolus versus bolus-tracking technique. Radiology. 2004;233(3):817–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rizvi A, Deano RC, Bachman DP, et al. Analysis of ventricular function by computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2015;9(1):1–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Takx RAP, Moscariello A, Schoepf UJ, et al. Quantification of left and right ventricular function and myocardial mass: comparison of low-radiation dose 2nd generation dual-source CT and cardiac MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(4):e598–604.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, et al. Radiation dose estimates from cardiac multislice computed tomography in daily practice. Circulation. 2006;113:1305–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hausleiter J, et al. A new algorithm for ECG-based tube current modulation (“MinDose”) reduces radiation dose estimates in cardiac dual source CT angiography. Circulation. 2007;116(Suppl 16):II-575.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Feuchtner G, Goetti R, Plass A, et al. Dual-step prospective ECG-triggered 128-slice dual source CT for evaluation of coronary arteries and cardiac function without heart rate control a technical note. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:2092–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ko YJ, Kim SS, Park WJ, et al. Comparison of global left ventricular function using 20 phases with 10-phase reconstructions in multidetector-row computed tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;28(3):603–11.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Puesken M, Fischbach R, Wenker M, et al. Global left-ventricular function assessment using dual-source multidetector CT: effect of improved temporal resolution on ventricular volume measurement. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(10):2087–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wai B, Thai WE, Brown H, et al. Novel phase-based noise reduction strategy for quantification of left ventricular function and mass assessment by cardiac CT: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:e337–41.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lessick J, Ghersin E, Abadi S, Yalonetsky S. Accuracy of the long-axis area-length method for the measurement of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction using multidetector computed tomograph. Can J Cardiol. 2008;24(9):685–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Greupner J, Zimmermann E, Hamm B, Dewey M. Automatic versus semiautomatic global cardiac function assessment using 64-row computed tomography. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1015):e243–53.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Juergens KU, Seifarth H, Range F, et al. Automated threshold-based 3D segmentation versus short-axis planimetry for assessment of global left ventricular function with dual-source MDCT. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(2):308–14.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Plumhans C, Keil S, Ocklenburg C, et al. Comparison of manual, semi- and fully automated heart segmentation for assessing global left ventricular function in multidetector computed tomography. Investig Radiol. 2009;44(8):476–82.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Ooijen PM, de Jonge GJ, Oudkerk M. Informatics in radiology: Postprocessing pitfalls in using CT for automatic and semiautomatic determination of global left ventricular function. Radiographics. 2012;32(2):589–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    de Jonge GJ, can der Vleuten PA, Overbosch J, et al. Semiautomatic measurement of left ventricular function on dual source computed tomography using five different software tools in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80(3):755–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mao SS, Li D, Rosenthal DG, et al. Dual-standard reference values of left ventricular volumetric parameters by multidetector CT angiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2013;7:234–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Juergens UK, Fischbach R. Left ventricular function studied with MDCT. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:342–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alfakih K, Plein S, Thiele H, et al. Normal human left and right ventricular dimensions for MRI as assessed by turbo gradient echo and steady state free precession imaging sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;17:323–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sandstede J, Lipke C, Beer M, et al. Age and gender specific differences in left and right ventricular cardiac function and mass determined by cine magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:438–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Boogers MJ, van Werkhoven JM, Shuijf JD, et al. Feasibility of diastolic functional assessment with cardiac CT: feasibility study in comparison with tissue Doppler imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:246–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lin FY, et al. Cardiac chamber volumes, function, and mass as determined by 64-multidetector row computed tomography: mean values among healthy adults free of hypertension and obesity. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1(6):782–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nevsky G, Jacobs JE, Lim RP, et al. Sex-specific normalized reference values of heart and great vessel dimensions in cardiac CT angiography. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:788–94.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Juergens KU, Grude M, Maintz D, et al. Multi-detector row CT of left ventricular function with dedicated analysis software versus MR imaging: initial experience. Radiology. 2004;230:403–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mahnken AH, Speuntrup E, Neithammer M, et al. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of left ventricular volume with ECG-gated multislice spiral CT: value of different image reconstruction algorithms in comparison to MRI. Acta Radiol. 2003;44(6):604–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    van der Vleuten PA, Willems TP, Gotte MJ, et al. Quantification of global left ventricular function: comparison of multidetector computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. A meta-analysis and review of the current literature. Acta Radiol. 2006;47(10):1049–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Grude M, Juegens KU, Wichter T, et al. Evaluation of global left ventricular myocardial function with electrocardiogram gated multidetector computed tomography. Comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Investig Radiol. 2003;38:653–61.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Asferg C, Usinger L, Kristensen TS, et al. Accuracy of multi-slice computed tomography for measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction compared with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Eur J Radiol. 2011;81:e756–62.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dewey M, Muller M, Eddicks S, et al. Evaluation of global and regional left ventricular function with 16-slice computed tomography, biplane cineventriculography and two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:2034.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mahias-Narvarte AHKF, Willis PW. Evolution of regional left ventricular wall motion abnormalities in acute Q and non-Q wave myocardial infarction. American Heart Journal. 1987;113:1369–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sarwar A, Shapiro MD, Nasir K, et al. Evaluating global and regional left ventricular function in patients with reperfused acute myocardial infarction by 64-slice multidetector CT: a comparison to magnetic resonance imaging. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3(3):170–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Seneviratne SK, Troung QA, Bamberg F, et al. Incremental diagnostic value of regional left ventricular function over coronary assessment by cardiac computed tomography for the detection of acute coronary syndrome in patients with acute chest pain: from the ROMICAT trial. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(8):375–83.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bezerra HG, Loureiro R, Irlbeck T, et al. Incremental value of myocardial perfusion over regional left ventricular function and coronary stenosis by cardiac CT for detection of acute coronary syndromes in high risk patients: a subgroup analysis of the ROMICAT trial. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5:382–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Candell-Riera JLJ, Santana C, Castell J, et al. Prognostic assessment of uncomplicated first myocardial infarction by exercise echocardiography and Tc-99m tetrofosmin gated SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2001;81:122–8.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Antonini-Canterin FNG. Valutazione eoardiografica dei volume e della funzione sistolica globale del ventricolo sinistro. Ital Heart J. 2000;1:1261–72.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Arsanjani R, Berman DS, Gransar H, et al. Left ventricular function and volume with coronary CT angiography improves risk stratification and identification of patients at risk for incident mortality: results from 7758 patients in the prospective multinational CONFIRM observational cohort study. Radiology. 2014;273(1):70–7Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mastrobuoni S, Dell’aquila AM, Arraiza M, et al. Allograft morphology and function in heart transplant recipients surviving more than 15 years by magnetic resonance imaging and dual-source computed tomography. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40(1):e62–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bastarrika G, Arraiza M, DeCecco CN, et al. Quantification of left ventricular function and mass in heart transplant recipients using dual-source CT and MRI: initial clinical experience. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(9):1784–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Taylor DO, Edwards LB, Aurora P, et al. Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: twenty-fifth official adult heart transplant report—2008. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2008;27(9):943–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Acharya D, Singh S, Tallaj JA, et al. Use of gated cardiac computed tomography angiography in the assessment of left ventricular assist device dysfunction. ASAIO J. 2011;57:32–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Geva T. Is MRI the preferred method for evaluating right ventricular size and function in patients with congenital heart disease? Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:190–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Raman SV, Shah M, McCarthy B, et al. Multi-detector row cardiac computed tomography accurately quantifies right and left ventricular size and function compared with cardiac magnetic resonance. Am Heart J. 2006;151:736–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Guo YK, Gao HL, Zhang XC, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of assessing right ventricular function with 64-section multi-detector row CT: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Cardiol. 2010;139:254–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kang DK, Thilo C, Schoepf UJ, et al. CT signs of right ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2011;4(8):841–9.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Quiroz R, Kucher N, Schoepf UJ, et al. Right ventricular enlargement on chest computed tomography: prognostic role in acute pulmonary embolism. Circulation. 2004;109(20):2401–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Staskiewicz G, Czekajska-Chehab E, Przegalinski J, et al. Widening of coronary sinus in CT pulmonary angiography indicates right ventricular dysfunction in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1615–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Burgess MI, Mogulkoc N, Bright-Thomas RJ, et al. Comparison of echocardiographic markers of right ventricular function in determining prognosis in chronic pulmonary disease. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2002;15:633–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dupont MVM, Dragean CA, Coche EE. Right ventricle function assessment by MDCT. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(1):77–86.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Therrien J, Provost Y, Merchant N, et al. Optimal timing for pulmonary valve replacement in adults after tetralogy of Fallot repair. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:779–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lee C, Kim YM, Lee CH, et al. Outcomes of pulmonary valve replacement in 170 patients with chronic pulmonary regurgitation after relief of right ventricular outflow tract obstruction: implications for optimal timing of pulmonary valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1005–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Marcus F, McKenna WJ, Sherrill D, et al. Diagnosis of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia: proposed modification of the task force criteria. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(7):806–14.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Nakajima T, Kimura F, Kajimoto K, et al. Utility of ECG-gated MDCT to differentiate patients with ARVC/D from patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2013;7:223–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Stojanovska J, Cronin P, Patel S, et al. Reference normal absolute and indexed values from ECG-gated MDCT: left atrial volume, function, and diameter. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(3):631–7.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Melenovsky V, Borlaug B, Rosen, et al. Cardiovascular features of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction versus non-failing hypertensive left ventricular hypertrophy in the urban Baltimore community. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:198.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Avelar E, Durst R, Rosito GA, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of multidetector computed tomography versus two-dimensional echocardiography to measure left atrial volume. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106(1):104–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rodevan O, Bjornerheim R, Ljosland M, et al. Left atrial volumes assessed by three- and two-dimensional echocardiography compared to MRI estimates. Int J Card Imaging. 1999;15:397–410.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Christiaens L, Lequeux B, Ardilouze P, et al. A new method for measurement of LA volumes using 64-slice spiral CT: comparison with 2DE techniques. Int J Cardiol. 2009;131:217–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Kircher B, Abbott JA, Paul S, et al. Left atrial volume determination by biplane two-dimensional echocardiography: validation by cine CT. Am Heart J. 1991;121:864–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Wen Z, Zhang Z, Yu W, et al. Assessing the left atrial phase volume and function with dual-source CT: comparison with 3T MRI. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;26:88–92.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Cardiothoracic Imaging DivisionUT Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations