1. Comparison of the within-reader and inter-vendor agreement of left ventricular circumferential strains and volume indices derived from cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging
- Author
-
Raimondo Ascione, Amedeo Chiribiri, Nathaniel Kelly, Andrew Cookson, Jonathan W. Bartlett, Bruno Agostinho-Hernandez, Doyin S. Mansell, Katherine H. Fraser, Thomas Johnson, Vito Domenico Bruno, Harinderjit Gill, Evelyn G. Frank, James Fletcher, and Eva Sammut
- Subjects
Swine ,Cardiovascular Medicine ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Diagnostic Radiology ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,0302 clinical medicine ,Software ,Diastole ,Medicine and Health Sciences ,Image Processing, Computer-Assisted ,Segmentation ,Cardiovascular Imaging ,Mathematics ,Multidisciplinary ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,Radiology and Imaging ,Software Engineering ,Heart ,Repeatability ,Organ Size ,Magnetic Resonance Imaging ,medicine.anatomical_structure ,cardiovascular system ,Medicine ,Engineering and Technology ,Anatomy ,Research Article ,Computer and Information Sciences ,Imaging Techniques ,Cardiac Ventricles ,Systole ,Science ,Heart Ventricles ,Cardiology ,Research and Analysis Methods ,Plot (graphics) ,Computer Software ,03 medical and health sciences ,Diagnostic Medicine ,medicine ,Medical imaging ,Animals ,Heart Ventricles/anatomy & histology ,Heart Failure ,Software Tools ,business.industry ,Biology and Life Sciences ,Magnetic resonance imaging ,Ventricle ,Cardiovascular Anatomy ,Stress, Mechanical ,business ,Ejection Fraction ,Volume (compression) ,Biomedical engineering - Abstract
PurposeVolume indices and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are routinely used to assess cardiac function. Ventricular strain values may provide additional diagnostic information, but their reproducibility is unclear. This study therefore compares the repeatability and reproducibility of volumes, volume fraction, and regional ventricular strains, derived from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, across three software packages and between readers.MethodsSeven readers analysed 16 short-axis CMR stacks of a porcine heart. Endocardial contours were manually drawn using OsiriX and Simpleware ScanIP and repeated in both softwares. The images were also contoured automatically in Circle CVI42. Endocardial global, apical, mid-ventricular, and basal circumferential strains, as well as end-diastolic and end-systolic volume and LVEF were compared.ResultsBland-Altman analysis found systematic biases in contour length between software packages. Compared to OsiriX, contour lengths were shorter in both ScanIP (-1.9 cm) and CVI42 (-0.6 cm), causing statistically significant differences in end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, and apical circumferential strain (all pConclusionOsiriX and CVI42 gave consistent results for all strain and volume metrics, with no statistical differences found between OsiriX and ScanIP for mid-ventricular, global or basal strains, or left ventricular ejection fraction. However, volumes were influenced by the choice of contouring software, suggesting care should be taken when comparing volumes across different software.
- Published
- 2020