# Evaluation of the Truncated Cone–Rhomboid Pyramid Formula for Simplified Right Ventricular Quantification: A Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Study

## TL;DR

This study evaluates a simplified formula for measuring right ventricular volumes and function using cardiac MRI, showing strong correlation with standard methods.

## Contribution

The study introduces a simplified geometric model for RV quantification using only two linear measurements in four-chamber views.

## Key findings

- RV volumes calculated with CPF were slightly higher than standard CMR analysis.
- RV-EF was lower with CPF compared to standard CMR analysis.
- Both methods showed strong correlation for RV volumes.

## Abstract

Background/Objective: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is the reference method for right ventricular (RV) volume and function analysis, but time-consuming manual segmentation and corrections of imperfect automatic segmentations are needed. This study sought to evaluate the applicability of an echocardiographically established truncated cone–rhomboid pyramid formula (CPF) for simplified RV quantification using CMR. Methods: A total of 70 consecutive patients assigned to RV analysis using CMR were included. As standard method, the manual contouring of RV-short axis planes was performed for the measurement of end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV). Additionally, two linear measurements in four-chamber views were obtained in systole and diastole: basal diameters at the level of tricuspid valve (Dd and Ds) and baso-apical lengths from the center of tricuspid valve to the RV apex (Ld and Ls) were measured for the calculation of RV-EDV = 1.21 × Dd2 × Ld and RV-ESV = 1.21 × Ds 2 × Ls using CPF. Results: RV volumes using CPF were slightly higher than those using standard CMR analysis (RV-EDV index: 86.2 ± 29.4 mL/m2 and RV-ESV index: 51.5 ± 22.5 mL/m2 vs. RV-EDV index: 81.7 ± 24.1 mL/m2 and RV-ESV index: 44.5 ± 23.2 mL/m2) and RV-EF was lower (RV-EF: 41.1 ± 13.5% vs. 48.4 ± 13.7%). Both methods had a strong correlation of RV volumes (ΔRV-EDV index = −4.5 ± 19.0 mL/m2; r = 0.765, p < 0.0001; ΔRV-ESV index = −7.0 ± 14.4 mL/m2; r = 0.801, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Calculations of RV volumes and function using CPF assuming the geometrical model of a truncated cone–rhomboid pyramid anatomy of RV is feasible, with a strong correlation to measurements using standard CMR analysis, and only two systolic and diastolic linear measurements in four-chamber views are needed.