4.7 Article

Comparison of the reproducibility of quantitative cardiac left ventricular assessments in healthy volunteers using different MRI scanners: a multicenter simulation

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 359-365

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21401

Keywords

cardiac MRI; reproducibility; multicenter; left ventricular mass; ejection fraction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To derive reproducibility assessments of ejection fraction (EF) and left ventricular mass (LVM) from shortaxis cardiac MR images acquired at single and multiple time-points on different 1.5T scanner models. Materials and Methods: Images of 15 healthy volunteers were acquired twice using a Magnetom Avanto scanner (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) and once using a Signa Excite scanner (General Electric, Milwaukee, WI, USA) over four months, and analyzed using ARGUS and MASS Analysis+ software, respectively. Two physicists independently segmented the myocardial borders in order to derive intraand interobserver assessments of EF and LVM for single and multiple time-points on the same and different scanners. Results: For EF, the coefficient of repeatability (CoR) increased as different observers, multiple time-points, and different scanners were introduced. The CoR ranged from 2.8% (intraobserver measurements, single time-point, same scanner) to 10.0% (interobserver measurements, different timepoints, different scanners). For LVM, intraobserver CoR parameters were consistently smaller than interobserver values. The CoR ranged from 7.8 g (intraobserver measurements, single time-point, same scanner) to 39.5 g (interobserver measurements, different time-points, different scanners). Conclusion: Reproducible EF data can be obtained at single or multiple time-points. using different scanners. However, LUM is notably susceptible to interobserver variation, and this should be carefully considered if similar evaluations are planned as part of multicenter or longitudinal investigations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available