PURPOSE: To assess the intra- and inter-operator variability of the manual planning of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging and to evaluate the influence of these factors on the functional parameters of the left ventricle (LV). METHOD: The study population consisted of 10 healthy volunteers. For each subject the manual planning of the short-axis cine acquisitions was carried out twice by one operator and once by a second operator. Left ventricular volume, mass, and function were manually evaluated twice by one experienced observer, resulting in an approximation of the intra-observer variability factor. The intra- and inter-operator variation factors were estimated as the difference between the total and intra-observer variation components. RESULTS: LV end-diastolic volume varied by 3.3% and 4.16%, and LV end-systolic volume by 5.84% and 6.23% for intra- and inter-operator studies, respectively. The variability for LV mass at end-diastole was equal to 4.23% in both studies. For the ejection fraction the variability was 3.56% and 2.97% for intra- and inter-operator studies, respectively. Comparison of reproducibility between intra- and inter-operator studies resulted in insignificant statistical differences. Bland-Altman limits of agreements revealed no systematic bias in differences between measurements with respect to their means. Reliability of the planning expressed as the angular deviation of the short-axis imaging planes amounts to 2.67 -/+ 1.5 degrees and 4.99 +/- 2.17 degrees for the intra-operator and inter-operator studies, respectively. For EDV, ESV, and EF approximately 75-80% of the total variation can be explained by the within or between operator variation, while the same percentage is 60% for LVM. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the excellent inter- and intra-operator reproducibility of the cardiovascular magnetic resonance measurements of the left ventricular volumes and mass in a group of healthy volunteers.
PURPOSE: To assess the intra- and inter-operator variability of the manual planning of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging and to evaluate the influence of these factors on the functional parameters of the left ventricle (LV). METHOD: The study population consisted of 10 healthy volunteers. For each subject the manual planning of the short-axis cine acquisitions was carried out twice by one operator and once by a second operator. Left ventricular volume, mass, and function were manually evaluated twice by one experienced observer, resulting in an approximation of the intra-observer variability factor. The intra- and inter-operator variation factors were estimated as the difference between the total and intra-observer variation components. RESULTS: LV end-diastolic volume varied by 3.3% and 4.16%, and LV end-systolic volume by 5.84% and 6.23% for intra- and inter-operator studies, respectively. The variability for LV mass at end-diastole was equal to 4.23% in both studies. For the ejection fraction the variability was 3.56% and 2.97% for intra- and inter-operator studies, respectively. Comparison of reproducibility between intra- and inter-operator studies resulted in insignificant statistical differences. Bland-Altman limits of agreements revealed no systematic bias in differences between measurements with respect to their means. Reliability of the planning expressed as the angular deviation of the short-axis imaging planes amounts to 2.67 -/+ 1.5 degrees and 4.99 +/- 2.17 degrees for the intra-operator and inter-operator studies, respectively. For EDV, ESV, and EF approximately 75-80% of the total variation can be explained by the within or between operator variation, while the same percentage is 60% for LVM. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the excellent inter- and intra-operator reproducibility of the cardiovascular magnetic resonance measurements of the left ventricular volumes and mass in a group of healthy volunteers.
Authors: A Bailly; J Lipiecki; P Chabrot; A Alfidja; J M Garcier; S Ughetto; J Ponsonnaille; L Boyer Journal: Surg Radiol Anat Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 1.246
Authors: Patrick Krumm; Jonas D Keuler; Stefanie Mangold; Tanja Zitzelsberger; Christer A Ruff; Bernhard D Klumpp; Petros Martirosian; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christof Burgstahler; Ulrich Kramer Journal: Tex Heart Inst J Date: 2017-08-01
Authors: Gilion L T F Hautvast; Carol J Salton; Michael L Chuang; Marcel Breeuwer; Christopher J O'Donnell; Warren J Manning Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-10-21 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Christian B Moyer; Patrick A Helm; Christopher J Clarke; Loren P Budge; Christopher M Kramer; John D Ferguson; Patrick T Norton; Jeffrey W Holmes Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Saskia E Luijnenburg; Daniëlle Robbers-Visser; Adriaan Moelker; Hubert W Vliegen; Barbara J M Mulder; Willem A Helbing Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 2.357