Reproducibility of native and contrast-enhanced CMR techniques to measure lesion size following acute myocardial infarction
Standard
Reproducibility of native and contrast-enhanced CMR techniques to measure lesion size following acute myocardial infarction. / Tahir, Enver; Sinn, Martin; Avanesov, Maxim; Wien, Joshua; Säring, Dennis; Radunski, Ulf Konrad; Muellerleile, Kai; Adam, Gerhard; Lund, Gunnar.
Insights Imaging (2016) 7 (Suppl 1):S162–S465. 2016.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Buch/Sammelwerk › Konferenzbeitrag - Abstract in Konferenzband › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - CHAP
T1 - Reproducibility of native and contrast-enhanced CMR techniques to measure lesion size following acute myocardial infarction
AU - Tahir, Enver
AU - Sinn, Martin
AU - Avanesov, Maxim
AU - Wien, Joshua
AU - Säring, Dennis
AU - Radunski, Ulf Konrad
AU - Muellerleile, Kai
AU - Adam, Gerhard
AU - Lund, Gunnar
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Purpose: To analyse the reproducibility of native and contrast-enhanced CMR techniques to measure lesion size after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods and Materials: Lesions were independently quantified by 2 experienced observers in total of 120 consecutive CMRs obtained in 30 patients within the first 6 months after AMI using native and contrast-enhanced sequences. A threshold method (cutoff > 2SD of remote normal myocardium) was used on basal, midventricular and apical short-axis left ventricular slices. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to determine the agreement between the two observers. Non-parametric Levene's test was used to compare the variances of the relative differences. Results: The relative median difference of the native CMR techniques were - 1.95% (-12.7% and 9.8%) for T2w, -5.3% (-19.6% and 14.8%) for native T1 and -4.0% (-23.9% and 9.9%) for native T2 (Figure 1). Results for contrast- enhanced CMR imaging were: 2.9% (-4.5% and 10.5%) for LGE, 7.5% (-2.4% and 21.5%) for post-contrast T1 and -2.9% (- 11.4% and 9%) for ECV measurement. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a better agreement for all post- contrast sequences indicated by lower limits of agreement (Figure 1). The increased variability of native imaging was caused by higher interobserver differences in small lesions. This bias was not observed for post-contrast imaging. Conclusion: There was a good agreement between the two observers to measure lesion size after AMI. However, all post-contrast sequences had a better agreement compared to the native sequences. The low agreement of native imaging was mainly caused by higher interobserver differences in small lesions compared to lager lesions.
AB - Purpose: To analyse the reproducibility of native and contrast-enhanced CMR techniques to measure lesion size after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods and Materials: Lesions were independently quantified by 2 experienced observers in total of 120 consecutive CMRs obtained in 30 patients within the first 6 months after AMI using native and contrast-enhanced sequences. A threshold method (cutoff > 2SD of remote normal myocardium) was used on basal, midventricular and apical short-axis left ventricular slices. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to determine the agreement between the two observers. Non-parametric Levene's test was used to compare the variances of the relative differences. Results: The relative median difference of the native CMR techniques were - 1.95% (-12.7% and 9.8%) for T2w, -5.3% (-19.6% and 14.8%) for native T1 and -4.0% (-23.9% and 9.9%) for native T2 (Figure 1). Results for contrast- enhanced CMR imaging were: 2.9% (-4.5% and 10.5%) for LGE, 7.5% (-2.4% and 21.5%) for post-contrast T1 and -2.9% (- 11.4% and 9%) for ECV measurement. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a better agreement for all post- contrast sequences indicated by lower limits of agreement (Figure 1). The increased variability of native imaging was caused by higher interobserver differences in small lesions. This bias was not observed for post-contrast imaging. Conclusion: There was a good agreement between the two observers to measure lesion size after AMI. However, all post-contrast sequences had a better agreement compared to the native sequences. The low agreement of native imaging was mainly caused by higher interobserver differences in small lesions compared to lager lesions.
M3 - Konferenzbeitrag - Abstract in Konferenzband
BT - Insights Imaging (2016) 7 (Suppl 1):S162–S465
ER -