Interobserver agreement for the direct and indirect signs of pulmonary embolism evaluated using contrast enhanced magnetic angiography.

CE-MRA, contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography CTPA, computed tomography pulmonary angiography Contrast enhanced ICC, intra class correlation Magnetic resonance angiography PA, pulmonary artery PE, pulmonary embolism Pulmonary embolism RV/LV, ratio of the right ventricular to left ventricular minor axis measurements Reader agreement SGRE, spoiled gradient recalled echo

Journal

European journal of radiology open
ISSN: 2352-0477
Titre abrégé: Eur J Radiol Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101650225

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 22 07 2020
accepted: 24 08 2020
entrez: 28 9 2020
pubmed: 29 9 2020
medline: 29 9 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) using contrast enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) requires awareness of both the direct and indirect findings of PE. To evaluate reader agreement of the direct and indirect findings of PE on CE-MRA. We evaluated pulmonary artery diameter, right ventricle/left ventricle ratio, and clot/vessel lumen signal intensity ratio. Also, eight direct and eight indirect findings of PE were interpreted twice by two radiologists with different experience levels. The prevalence, and intra- and inter-reader agreement for the direct and indirect findings of PE were recorded. Statistical analysis of the measurements was assessed using intraclass correlation while Cohen's kappa test determined inter- and intra-reader agreement. We reviewed 66 positive CE-MRA exams, 10 of which cases were used for training. The largest PE for each of the remaining 56 cases (40 woman) were included in this analysis (38.9 ± 19.7 (mean age (years) ± S.D.)). The highest interobserver agreement for the direct findings were vessel cutoff (κ = 0.52, 95 % CI = (0.30, 0.74), p < .0001) and bright clot (κ = 0.51, 95 % CI = (0.26, 0.78), p = .0001). The highest interobserver agreement for the indirect findings were for atelectasis (κ = 0.67, 95 % CI = (0.49, 0.87), p < .0001), pleural effusions (κ = 0.56, 95 % CI = (0.32, 0.79), p = 0001) and blank slate sing (κ = 0.56, 95 % CI = (0.18, 0.94), p < .0001). The indirect findings of atelectasis and pleural effusion had better interobserver reproducibility than the direct findings of vessel cutoff and bright clot. The intraobserver reproducibility of the direct and indirect findings is dependent on experience level. Using contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, the indirect findings of atelectasis and pleural effusion had better interobserver reproducibility than the direct findings of vessel cutoff and bright clot.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) using contrast enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) requires awareness of both the direct and indirect findings of PE.
PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
To evaluate reader agreement of the direct and indirect findings of PE on CE-MRA.
METHODS METHODS
We evaluated pulmonary artery diameter, right ventricle/left ventricle ratio, and clot/vessel lumen signal intensity ratio. Also, eight direct and eight indirect findings of PE were interpreted twice by two radiologists with different experience levels. The prevalence, and intra- and inter-reader agreement for the direct and indirect findings of PE were recorded. Statistical analysis of the measurements was assessed using intraclass correlation while Cohen's kappa test determined inter- and intra-reader agreement.
RESULTS RESULTS
We reviewed 66 positive CE-MRA exams, 10 of which cases were used for training. The largest PE for each of the remaining 56 cases (40 woman) were included in this analysis (38.9 ± 19.7 (mean age (years) ± S.D.)). The highest interobserver agreement for the direct findings were vessel cutoff (κ = 0.52, 95 % CI = (0.30, 0.74), p < .0001) and bright clot (κ = 0.51, 95 % CI = (0.26, 0.78), p = .0001). The highest interobserver agreement for the indirect findings were for atelectasis (κ = 0.67, 95 % CI = (0.49, 0.87), p < .0001), pleural effusions (κ = 0.56, 95 % CI = (0.32, 0.79), p = 0001) and blank slate sing (κ = 0.56, 95 % CI = (0.18, 0.94), p < .0001).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The indirect findings of atelectasis and pleural effusion had better interobserver reproducibility than the direct findings of vessel cutoff and bright clot. The intraobserver reproducibility of the direct and indirect findings is dependent on experience level.
SUMMARY STATEMENT CONCLUSIONS
Using contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, the indirect findings of atelectasis and pleural effusion had better interobserver reproducibility than the direct findings of vessel cutoff and bright clot.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32984448
doi: 10.1016/j.ejro.2020.100256
pii: S2352-0477(20)30045-9
pmc: PMC7494795
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

100256

Informations de copyright

© 2020 The Author(s).

Références

Radiology. 2016 Feb;278(2):413-21
pubmed: 26422185
Emerg Radiol. 2018 Oct;25(5):469-477
pubmed: 29749576
Clin Radiol. 2008 Apr;63(4):381-6
pubmed: 18325357
Eur Radiol. 2014 Aug;24(8):1942-9
pubmed: 24863886
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84
pubmed: 18046031
N Engl J Med. 2008 Mar 6;358(10):1037-52
pubmed: 18322285
Chest. 2012 Feb;141(2 Suppl):e419S-e496S
pubmed: 22315268
Am J Emerg Med. 2011 May;29(4):465-7
pubmed: 21353437
Br J Radiol. 2012 Dec;85(1020):e1316-7
pubmed: 23175496
N Engl J Med. 1992 May 7;326(19):1240-5
pubmed: 1560799
N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun 1;354(22):2317-27
pubmed: 16738268
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Mar;196(3):497-515
pubmed: 21343491
J Thorac Imaging. 2010 May;25(2):151-60
pubmed: 20463534
Am J Emerg Med. 2009 Nov;27(9):1109-11
pubmed: 19931759
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Jun;194(6):1500-6
pubmed: 20489089
Lancet. 2012 Aug 4;380(9840):499-505
pubmed: 22681860
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Oct;38(4):914-25
pubmed: 23553735
BMJ. 2013 May 21;346:f2360
pubmed: 23694687

Auteurs

Nanae Tsuchiya (N)

Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Department of Radiology, University of Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan.
Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

Donald G Benson (DG)

Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Department of Radiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Science College of Medicine, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

Colin Longhurst (C)

Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

Christopher J François (CJ)

Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

Scott B Reeder (SB)

Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

Michael D Repplinger (MD)

Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

Mark L Schiebler (ML)

Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

Classifications MeSH