Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging feature tracking: Impact of training on observer performance and reproducibility.
Adult
Aged
Female
Healthy Volunteers
Heart Failure
/ diagnosis
Heart Ventricles
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Myocardial Contraction
/ physiology
Observer Variation
Reproducibility of Results
Software
Ventricular Dysfunction
/ complications
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
30
09
2018
accepted:
16
12
2018
entrez:
26
1
2019
pubmed:
27
1
2019
medline:
29
9
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) is increasingly used for myocardial deformation assessment including ventricular strain, showing prognostic value beyond established risk markers if used in experienced centres. Little is known about the impact of appropriate training on CMR-FT performance. Consequently, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of training on observer variance using different commercially available CMR-FT software. Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility was assessed prior to and after dedicated one-hour observer training. Employed FT software included 3 different commercially available platforms (TomTec, Medis, Circle). Left (LV) and right (RV) ventricular global longitudinal as well as LV circumferential and radial strains (GLS, GCS and GRS) were studied in 12 heart failure patients and 12 healthy volunteers. Training improved intra- and inter-observer reproducibility. GCS and LV GLS showed the highest reproducibility before (ICC >0.86 and >0.81) and after training (ICC >0.91 and >0.92). RV GLS and GRS were more susceptible to tracking inaccuracies and reproducibility was lower. Inter-observer reproducibility was lower than intra-observer reproducibility prior to training with more pronounced improvements after training. Before training, LV strain reproducibility was lower in healthy volunteers as compared to patients with no differences after training. Whilst LV strain reproducibility was sufficient within individual software solutions inter-software comparisons revealed considerable software related variance. Observer experience is an important source of variance in CMR-FT derived strain assessment. Dedicated observer training significantly improves reproducibility with most profound benefits in states of high myocardial contractility and potential to facilitate widespread clinical implementation due to optimized robustness and diagnostic performance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) is increasingly used for myocardial deformation assessment including ventricular strain, showing prognostic value beyond established risk markers if used in experienced centres. Little is known about the impact of appropriate training on CMR-FT performance. Consequently, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of training on observer variance using different commercially available CMR-FT software.
METHODS
Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility was assessed prior to and after dedicated one-hour observer training. Employed FT software included 3 different commercially available platforms (TomTec, Medis, Circle). Left (LV) and right (RV) ventricular global longitudinal as well as LV circumferential and radial strains (GLS, GCS and GRS) were studied in 12 heart failure patients and 12 healthy volunteers.
RESULTS
Training improved intra- and inter-observer reproducibility. GCS and LV GLS showed the highest reproducibility before (ICC >0.86 and >0.81) and after training (ICC >0.91 and >0.92). RV GLS and GRS were more susceptible to tracking inaccuracies and reproducibility was lower. Inter-observer reproducibility was lower than intra-observer reproducibility prior to training with more pronounced improvements after training. Before training, LV strain reproducibility was lower in healthy volunteers as compared to patients with no differences after training. Whilst LV strain reproducibility was sufficient within individual software solutions inter-software comparisons revealed considerable software related variance.
CONCLUSION
Observer experience is an important source of variance in CMR-FT derived strain assessment. Dedicated observer training significantly improves reproducibility with most profound benefits in states of high myocardial contractility and potential to facilitate widespread clinical implementation due to optimized robustness and diagnostic performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30682045
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210127
pii: PONE-D-18-28470
pmc: PMC6347155
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0210127Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 27;11(6):e0158280
pubmed: 27348525
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018 Apr 19;20(1):26
pubmed: 29669563
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Oct;11(10):1433-1444
pubmed: 29454776
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011 Oct 12;13:58
pubmed: 21992220
Eur Heart J. 2006 Jun;27(12):1459-64
pubmed: 16613929
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Oct;11(10):1448-1457
pubmed: 29248649
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 May;47(5):1415-1425
pubmed: 29205626
Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 Dec;16(12):1301-9
pubmed: 25211239
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016 Jun 16;18(1):39
pubmed: 27306901
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Feb;82(2):296-301
pubmed: 23246014
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 14;13(3):e0193746
pubmed: 29538467
Circulation. 1987 Jul;76(1):44-51
pubmed: 3594774
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jun 11;61(23):2365-73
pubmed: 23563128
J Echocardiogr. 2016 Mar;14(1):30-8
pubmed: 26613742
Clin Radiol. 2015 Sep;70(9):989-98
pubmed: 26139384
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Nov;30(5):956-66
pubmed: 19856409
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014 Oct 07;16:75
pubmed: 25315082
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016 Aug 26;18(1):51
pubmed: 27561421
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Mar;16(3):307-15
pubmed: 25246506
Circulation. 2010 Feb 9;121(5):692-705
pubmed: 20142462
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Oct;11(10):1419-1429
pubmed: 29361479
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Apr 15;257:54-61
pubmed: 29402525
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Sep 23;64(12):1217-26
pubmed: 25236513
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Jan;16(1):1-11
pubmed: 25525063
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Jan;43(1):128-37
pubmed: 26114731
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Jun 20;166(2):413-20
pubmed: 22130224
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2018 Mar 06;18:46-51
pubmed: 29876503
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2007;9(5):777-83
pubmed: 17891615
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Apr;9(4):e004077
pubmed: 27009468
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012 Jun 21;14:43
pubmed: 22721175
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996 Apr;27(5):1119-27
pubmed: 8609330
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014 Aug 12;16:60
pubmed: 25196447
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 07;10(4):e0122858
pubmed: 25848764
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 May 10;15:37
pubmed: 23663535
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013 Nov;26(11):1258-1266.e2
pubmed: 23953701
Kardiol Pol. 2014;72(4):363-71
pubmed: 24293146