Repeatability and reproducibility of various 4D Flow MRI postprocessing software programs in a multi-software and multi-vendor cross-over comparison study.
4D Flow CMR
Aorta
Blood flow velocity
Flow quantification
Inter-rater comparison
Inter-scanner comparison
Inter-software comparison
Intra-rater comparison
Phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging
Wall shear stress
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
ISSN: 1532-429X
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815616
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 03 2023
28 03 2023
Historique:
received:
02
06
2022
accepted:
20
01
2023
medline:
30
3
2023
entrez:
28
3
2023
pubmed:
29
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Different software programs are available for the evaluation of 4D Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). A good agreement of the results between programs is a prerequisite for the acceptance of the method. Therefore, the goal was to compare quantitative results from a cross-over comparison in individuals examined on two scanners of different vendors analyzed with four postprocessing software packages. Eight healthy subjects (27 ± 3 years, 3 women) were each examined on two 3T CMR systems (Ingenia, Philips Healthcare; MAGNETOM Skyra, Siemens Healthineers) with a standardized 4D Flow CMR sequence. Six manually placed aortic contours were evaluated with Caas (Pie Medical Imaging, SW-A), cvi42 (Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, SW-B), GTFlow (GyroTools, SW-C), and MevisFlow (Fraunhofer Institute MEVIS, SW-D) to analyze seven clinically used parameters including stroke volume, peak flow, peak velocity, and area as well as typically scientifically used wall shear stress values. Statistical analysis of inter- and intrareader variability, inter-software and inter-scanner comparison included calculation of absolute and relative error (E SW-A and SW-C were the only software programs showing agreement for stroke volume (ICC = 0.96; E Of all tested software programs, only SW-A and SW-C can be used equivalently for determination of stroke volume, peak flow, and vessel area. Irrespective of the applied software and scanner, high intra- and interreader variability for all parameters have to be taken into account before introducing 4D Flow CMR in clinical routine. Especially in multicenter clinical trials a single image evaluation software should be applied.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Different software programs are available for the evaluation of 4D Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). A good agreement of the results between programs is a prerequisite for the acceptance of the method. Therefore, the goal was to compare quantitative results from a cross-over comparison in individuals examined on two scanners of different vendors analyzed with four postprocessing software packages.
METHODS
Eight healthy subjects (27 ± 3 years, 3 women) were each examined on two 3T CMR systems (Ingenia, Philips Healthcare; MAGNETOM Skyra, Siemens Healthineers) with a standardized 4D Flow CMR sequence. Six manually placed aortic contours were evaluated with Caas (Pie Medical Imaging, SW-A), cvi42 (Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, SW-B), GTFlow (GyroTools, SW-C), and MevisFlow (Fraunhofer Institute MEVIS, SW-D) to analyze seven clinically used parameters including stroke volume, peak flow, peak velocity, and area as well as typically scientifically used wall shear stress values. Statistical analysis of inter- and intrareader variability, inter-software and inter-scanner comparison included calculation of absolute and relative error (E
RESULTS
SW-A and SW-C were the only software programs showing agreement for stroke volume (ICC = 0.96; E
CONCLUSIONS
Of all tested software programs, only SW-A and SW-C can be used equivalently for determination of stroke volume, peak flow, and vessel area. Irrespective of the applied software and scanner, high intra- and interreader variability for all parameters have to be taken into account before introducing 4D Flow CMR in clinical routine. Especially in multicenter clinical trials a single image evaluation software should be applied.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36978131
doi: 10.1186/s12968-023-00921-4
pii: 10.1186/s12968-023-00921-4
pmc: PMC10052852
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
22Subventions
Organisme : Universität zu Lübeck, Sektion Medizin
ID : J31-2018
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Radiographics. 2002 May-Jun;22(3):651-71
pubmed: 12006694
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Jun;49(6):1543-1552
pubmed: 30443945
Magn Reson Med. 2008 Nov;60(5):1218-31
pubmed: 18956416
Radiology. 2015 Dec;277(3):813-25
pubmed: 26267831
Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Sep;61:73-82
pubmed: 31100318
MAGMA. 2018 Oct;31(5):653-663
pubmed: 29804208
Acta Radiol. 2019 Mar;60(3):327-337
pubmed: 30479136
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2019 Feb 21;21(1):12
pubmed: 30786898
Stat Methods Med Res. 2015 Feb;24(1):27-67
pubmed: 24919831
Perspect Clin Res. 2017 Oct-Dec;8(4):187-191
pubmed: 29109937
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Jul;36(1):128-38
pubmed: 22336966
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019 Jan;100(1):17-23
pubmed: 30241970
Eur Radiol. 2021 Feb;31(2):1160-1174
pubmed: 32870392
MAGMA. 2019 Apr;32(2):269-279
pubmed: 30171383
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Nov;36(5):1015-36
pubmed: 23090914
Magn Reson Med Sci. 2019 Oct 15;18(4):265-271
pubmed: 30828045
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Apr;79(4):1882-1892
pubmed: 28714282
Acad Radiol. 2013 Jun;20(6):699-704
pubmed: 23510798
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Apr 01;:
pubmed: 29607574
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Jan;43(1):236-48
pubmed: 26140480
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2010 Jan 14;12:5
pubmed: 20074359
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Feb;49(2):534-545
pubmed: 30102431
Biomed Eng Online. 2021 Aug 21;20(1):84
pubmed: 34419047
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015 Aug 10;17:72
pubmed: 26257141
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Apr;33(4):988-94
pubmed: 21448968