4.7 Article

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

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 359-365

出版社

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

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据