Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2015 Feb;118(2):158-72. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2014.11.006. Epub 2014 Dec 2.

A comparative approach of four different image registration techniques for quantitative assessment of coronary artery calcium lesions using intravascular ultrasound.

Author information

1
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Toho University Ohashi Medical Center, 2-17-6 Ohashi, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
2
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Centre for Global Health and Medicine (NCGM), 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
3
Point of Care Devices, Global Biomedical Technologies, Inc., Roseville, CA, USA.
4
Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria (A.O.U.) di Cagliari - Polo di Monserrato, Università di Cagliari, s.s. 554 Monserrato, Cagliari 09045, Italy.
5
Stoke Screening and Monitoring Division, AtheroPoint™ LLC, Roseville, CA, USA.
6
IMIM - Hospital del Mar, Passeig Marítim 25-29, Barcelona, Spain.
7
Department of Computer Science, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
8
Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, USA.
9
MILab, CVC, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Applied Mathematics and Analysis Department, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
10
UC Davis Vascular Center, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
11
Vascular Screening and Diagnostic Centre, London, UK; Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
12
Point of Care Devices, Global Biomedical Technologies, Inc., Roseville, CA, USA; Stoke Screening and Monitoring Division, AtheroPoint™ LLC, Roseville, CA, USA; Electrical Engineering Department (Affl.), Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, USA. Electronic address: jasjit.suri@atheropoint.com.

Abstract

In IVUS imaging, constant linear velocity and a constant angular velocity of 1800 rev/min causes displacement of the calcium in subsequent image frames. To overcome this error in intravascular ultrasound video, IVUS image frames must be registered prior to the lesion quantification. This paper presents a comprehensive comparison of four registration methods, namely: Rigid, Affine, B-Splines and Demons on five set of calcium lesion quantification parameters namely: (i) the mean lesion area, (ii) mean lesion arc, (iii) mean lesion span, (iv) mean lesion length, and (v) mean lesion distance from catheter. Using our IRB approved data of 100 patient volumes, our results shows that all four registrations showed a decrease in five calcium lesion parameters as follows: for Rigid registration, the values were: 4.92%, 5.84%, 5.89%, 5.27%, and 4.57%, respectively, for Affine registration the values were: 6.06%, 6.51%, 7.28%, 6.50%, and 5.94%, respectively, for B-Splines registration the values were: 7.35%, 8.03%, 9.54%, 8.18%, and 7.62%, respectively, and for Demons registration the five parameters were 7.32%, 8.02%, 10.11%, 7.94%, and 8.92% respectively. The relative overlap of identified lesions decreased by 5.91% in case of Rigid registration, 6.23% in case of Affine registration, 4.48% for Demons registration, whereas it increased by 3.05% in case of B-Splines registration. Rigid and Affine transformation-based registration took only 0.1936 and 0.2893 s per frame, respectively. Demons and B-Splines framework took only 0.5705 and 0.9405 s per frame, respectively, which were significantly slower than Rigid and Affine transformation based image registration.

KEYWORDS:

AtheroEdge™; Demons; IVUS; Motion; Registration; Rigid

PMID:
25523233
DOI:
10.1016/j.cmpb.2014.11.006
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center