Open AccessComparison of the within-reader and inter-vendor agreement of left ventricular circumferential strains and volume indices derived from cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging
Author(s) -
Doyin S. Mansell,
Evelyn G. Frank,
Nathaniel Kelly,
Bruno Agostinho Hernandez,
James Fletcher,
Vito Bruno,
Eva Sammut,
Amedeo Chiribiri,
Tom Johnson,
Raimondo Ascione,
Jonathan Bartlett,
Harinderjit Gill,
Katharine Fraser,
Andrew Cookson
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0242908
Subject(s) - ejection fraction , reproducibility , magnetic resonance imaging , cardiac magnetic resonance , stroke volume , contouring , basal (medicine) , cardiac magnetic resonance imaging , cardiology , end diastolic volume , medicine , nuclear medicine , heart failure , computer science , radiology , mathematics , computer graphics (images) , statistics , insulin
Purpose 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.