Advertisement

Segmentation of the Left Ventricle

  • Eugenio Picano

Abstract

As with all methods of cardiac imaging, from ventriculography to scintigraphy, the left ventricle can be subdivided into a series of slices or segments for the purposes of the echocardiographic examination. Since a universally accepted standardization is lacking, the number of segments and the echocardiographic views employed for their identification vary markedly in the literature. The segmentation of the left ventricle has been proposed into 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 20 segments [1]. The resolution of the segmental approach is a function of the number of segments, so that it can range from 20% (in the 5-segment model) to 5% (in the 20-segment model). However, increasing the number of segments, and thus reducing their size, leads to an unacceptable complication of the analysis with a greater need for approximation and interpolation. A reasonable trade-off between accuracy and feasibility is represented by the 14-segment model proposed by Edwards and Tajik [2]. The wall segments are identified according to internal anatomic landmarks of the left ventricle in the standard parasternal (long-axis and short axis at the mitral, papillary, and apical levels), apical (five-, four-, three-, and two-chamber) and subcostal (long-axis and short axis) views (Fig. 1).

Keywords

Left Ventricle Stress Echocardiography Interventricular Septum Inferior Wall Septal Perforator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Visser CA, Kan G, Meltzer R (eds) (1988) Echocardiography in coronary artery disease. Nijhoff, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edwards WD, Tajik AJ, Seward JB (1981) Standardized nomenclature and anatomic basis for regional tomographic analysis of the heart. Mayo Clin Proc 56: 479–497PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marino P, Zanolla L, Zardini P (1989) Effect of streptokinase on left ventricular modeling and function after myocardial infarction: the GISSI trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 14: 1149–1158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feigenbaum H (1986) Coronary artery disease. In: Feigenbaum H (ed) Echocardiography, 4th edn. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 462–513Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weyman AE (1982) Cross-sectional echocardiography. Lean and Febinger, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feigenbaum H (1988) Exercise echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiography 1: 161–166Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vandenberg BF, Kerber RE (1988) Regional wall-motion abnormalities and coronary artery disease: prognostic implications. In: Kerber RE (ed) Echocardiography in coronary artery disease. Futura, Mount Kisco, p 67–80Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schiller NB, Shah PM, Crawford M, DeMaria A, Devereux R, Feigenbaum H, Gutgesell H, Reichek N, Sahn D, Schnittger I, Silverman AH, Tajik AJ (1989) Recommendations for quantiation of the left ventricle by two-dimensional echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiography 2:358–367Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugenio Picano
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Clinical PhysiologyCNRPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations