Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2019 Feb 21;21(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s12968-019-0522-y.

Quantification in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: agreement of software from three different vendors on assessment of left ventricular function, 2D flow and parametric mapping.

Author information

1
Working Group on Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Experimental and Clinical Research Center, a joint cooperation between the Charité Medical Faculty and the Max-Delbrueck Center for Molecular Medicine and HELIOS Hospital Berlin-Buch, Department of Cardiology and Nephrology, Medical University Berlin, Charité Campus Buch, Lindenberger Weg 80, 13125, Berlin, Germany.
2
DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
3
SCO:SSiS, Berlin, Germany.
4
Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Medizinische Klinik II, Klinikum Braunschweig gGmbH, Braunschweig, Germany.
5
Working Group on Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Experimental and Clinical Research Center, a joint cooperation between the Charité Medical Faculty and the Max-Delbrueck Center for Molecular Medicine and HELIOS Hospital Berlin-Buch, Department of Cardiology and Nephrology, Medical University Berlin, Charité Campus Buch, Lindenberger Weg 80, 13125, Berlin, Germany. Jeanette.schulz-menger@charite.de.
6
DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Berlin, Berlin, Germany. Jeanette.schulz-menger@charite.de.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Quantitative results of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) image analysis influence clinical decision making. Image analysis is performed based on dedicated software. The manufacturers provide different analysis tools whose algorithms are often unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of software on quantification of left ventricular (LV) assessment, 2D flow measurement and T1- and T2-parametric mapping.

METHODS:

Thirty-one data sets of patients who underwent a CMR Scan on 1.5 T were analyzed using three different software (Circle CVI: cvi42, Siemens Healthineers: Argus, Medis: Qmass/Qflow) by one reader blinded to former results. Cine steady state free precession short axis images were analyzed regarding LV ejection fraction (EF), end-systolic and end-diastolic volume (ESV, EDV) and LV mass. Phase-contrast magnetic resonance images were evaluated for forward stroke volume (SV) and peak velocity (Vmax). Pixel-wise generated native T1- and T2-maps were used to assess T1- and T2-time. Forty-five data sets were evaluated twice (15 per software) for intraobserver analysis. Equivalence was considered if the confidence interval of a paired assessment of two sofware was within a tolerance interval defined by ±1.96 highest standard deviation obtained by intraobserver analysis.

RESULTS:

For each parameter, thirty data sets could be analyzed with all three software. All three software (A/B, A/C, B/C) were considered equivalent for LV EF, EDV, ESV, mass, 2D flow SV and T2-time. Differences between software were detected in flow measurement for Vmax and in parametric mapping for T1-time. For Vmax, equivalence was given between software A and C and for T1-time equivalence was given between software B and C.

CONCLUSION:

Software had no impact on quantitative results of LV assessment, T2-time and SV based on 2D flow. In contrast to that, Vmax and T1-time may be influenced by software. CMR reports should contain the name and version of the software applied for image analysis to avoid misinterpretation upon follow-up and research examinations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ISRCTN12210850 . Registered 14 July 2017, retrospectively registered.

KEYWORDS:

2D flow; Analysis; Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Left ventricle; Parametric mapping; Post-processing software

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center