Comparison of the within-reader and inter-vendor agreement of left ventricular circumferential strains and volume indices derived from cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.
Comparison of the within-reader and inter-vendor agreement of left ventricular circumferential strains and volume indices derived from cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0242908
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Cookson AN
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mansell DS;Frank EG;Kelly NS;Agostinho-Hernandez B;Fletcher J;Bruno VD;Sammut E;Chiribiri A;Johnson T;Ascione R;Bartlett JW;Gill HS;Fraser KH;Cookson AN
容积指数和左心室射血分数（LVEF）通常用于评估心脏功能。心室应变值可提供额外的诊断信息，但其可重复性尚不清楚。因此，本研究比较了三种软件包和阅片员之间心血管磁共振（CMR）成像得出的容积、容积分数和局部心室应变的重复性和再现性。7名阅片人分析了猪心脏的16个短轴CMR堆栈。使用OsiriX和Simpleware ScanIP手动绘制内皮细胞轮廓，并在两种软件中重复。图像也在Circle CVI 42中自动轮廓化。比较了心内膜整体、心尖、心室中部和基底周向应变，以及舒张末期和收缩末期容积和LVEF。Bland-Altman分析发现软件包之间的轮廓长度存在系统性偏倚。与OsiriX相比，ScanIP（-1.9 cm）和CVI 42（-0.6 cm）的轮廓长度更短，导致舒张末期和收缩末期容积以及心尖周向应变存在统计学显著差异（所有p<0.006）。心室中部、基础或整体应变或左心室射血分数无差异（所有p<0.007）。所有CVI 42结果均在OsiriX结果范围内。发现软件内差异低于软件间差异。OsiriX和CVI 42对所有应变和容积指标给出了一致的结果，OsiriX和ScanIP之间在心室中部、整体或基础应变或左心室射血分数方面没有发现统计学差异。然而，体积受到轮廓绘制软件选择的影响，这表明在比较不同软件的体积时应小心。
Volume 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. Seven 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. Bland-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 p<0.006). No differences were found for mid-ventricular, basal or global strains, or left ventricular ejection fraction (all p<0.007). All CVI42 results lay within the ranges of the OsiriX results. Intra-software differences were found to be lower than inter-software differences. OsiriX 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Schuster, A.;Stahnke, V. -C.;Lotz, J.
通讯作者：
Lotz, J.
影响因子：
39.3
作者：
Smiseth OA;Torp H;Opdahl A;Haugaa KH;Urheim S
通讯作者：
Urheim S
DOI：
10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9
发表时间：
2015-07-28
期刊：
Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
影响因子：
--
作者：
Suinesiaputra A;Bluemke DA;Cowan BR;Friedrich MG;Kramer CM;Kwong R;Plein S;Schulz-Menger J;Westenberg JJ;Young AA;Nagel E
通讯作者：
Nagel E
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Dobrovie, Monica;Barreiro-Perez, Manuel;Bogaert, Jan
通讯作者：
Bogaert, Jan
影响因子：
37.8
作者：
Sutton, MGS;Sharpe, N
通讯作者：
Sharpe, N