Relationship of pericardial effusion thickness and volume measurement by non-ECG gated computed tomography

Karnkawin Patharateeranart; Jitladda Wasinrat; Jidapa Stapornchaisit

doi:10.46475/asean-jr.v24i3.349

Authors

Karnkawin Patharateeranart, M.D. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Thailand.
Jitladda Wasinrat, M.D. Division of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8835-4599
Jidapa Stapornchaisit, M.D. Division of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46475/asean-jr.v24i3.349

Keywords:

Computed tomography, Estimation of pericardial effusion volume, Pericardial effusion

Abstract

Background: An accurate estimation of pericardial fluid volume could improve communication between radiologists and the multidisciplinary team.

Objective: To find the correlation between the volume and thickness of pericardial effusion measured by CT scan.

Materials and Methods: The chest CT scans of 38 patients with pericardial effusion were measured for volume using manual segmentation and for thickness on axial and 3-chamber planes from the anterior and posterior aspects. The correlation between volume and thickness was evaluated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r). The reliability of the measurements was tested using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis.

Results: There was a fair to moderately strong correlation between the volume and thickness of pericardial effusion (r= 0.435-0.625, p= <0.01). An ICC of 0.452-0.703 indicated moderate inter-observer agreement. The best measurement is the sum of the anterior and posterior thicknesses on the axial plane (ICC of 0.703) that correlates well with the volume (r= 0.624). A linear regression equation demonstrating the relationship between pericardial effusion thickness and the effusion volume was computed as; Volume (mL) = 73 + 71*(the sum of anterior and posterior thicknesses on axial view in cm). The equation was applied: a value of approximately 3 cm = small, 6 cm = moderate, and 9 cm = large pericardial effusion.

Conclusion: There is a moderate correlation between the sum of the anterior and posterior pericardial thicknesses and the pericardial volume. Our preliminary formula enables a rapid estimation of the effusion volume. Further validation and refinement of the formula in a larger, prospective study is needed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Adler Y, Charron P, Imazio M, Badano L, Barón-Esquivias G, Bogaert J, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases: The task force for the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) endorsed by: The European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2015;36:2921-64. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv318.

Ceriani E, Cogliati C. Update on bedside ultrasound diagnosis of pericardial effusion. Intern Emerg Med 2016;11:477-80. doi: 10.1007/s11739-015-1372-8.

DeMaria DM, Waring AA, Gregg DE, Litwin SE. Echocardiographic assessment of pericardial effusion size: time for a quantitative approach. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2019;32:1615-7.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2019.08.019.

Unal E, Karcaaltincaba M, Akpinar E, Ariyurek OM. The imaging appearances of various pericardial disorders. Insights Imaging 2019;10:42. doi: 10.1186/s13244-019-0728-4.

Moustafa A, Liu X, Ye F, Khuder S, Alhazmi L, Youssef E, et al. Computed tomography scan overestimates the size of pericardial effusion compared to echocardiography. Cureus 2019;11:e5182. doi: 10.7759/cureus.5182. doi: 10.7759/cureus.5182.

Ebert LC, Ampanozi G, Ruder TD, Hatch G, Thali MJ, Germerott T. CT based volume measurement and estimation in cases of pericardial effusion. J Forensic Leg Med 2012;19:126-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2011.12.007.

Tomoda H, Hoshiai M, Furuya H, Oeda Y, Matsumoto S, Tanabe T, et al. Evaluation of pericardial effusion with computed tomography. Am Heart J 1980;99:701-6. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(80)90618-3.

Leibowitz D, Perlman G, Planer D, Gilon D, Berman P, Bogot N. Quantification of pericardial effusions by echocardiography and computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 2011;107:331-5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.08.072.

Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15:155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.

Chan YH. Biostatistics 104: correlational analysis. Singapore Med J 2003;44:614-9.

Frank H, Globits S. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of myocardial and pericardial disease. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:617-26. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1522-2586(199911)10:5<617::aid-jmri5>3.0.co;2-z.

Ohta Y, Miyoshi F, Kaminou T, Kaetsu Y, Ogawa T. The evaluation of cardiac tamponade risk in patients with pericardial effusion detected by non-gated chest CT. Acta Radiol 2016;57:538-46. doi: 10.1177/0284185115592272.

Spodick DH. Acute cardiac tamponade. N Engl J Med 2003;349:684-90. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra022643.

Groth M, Regier M, Muellerleile K, Bannas P, Adam G, Henes FO. A new formula for rapid assessment of pericardial effusion volume by computed tomography. Acad Radiol 2012;19:718-22. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2012.01.008.

Cosyns B, Plein S, Nihoyanopoulos P, Smiseth O, Achenbach S, Andrade MJ, et al. European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) position paper: Multimodality imaging in pericardial disease. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;16:12-31. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jeu128.

Watanabe S, Hyodoh H, Shimizu J, Okazaki S, Mizuo K, Rokukawa M. Classification of hemopericardium on postmortem CT. Leg Med (Tokyo) 2015;17:376-80. doi: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2015.05.004.