PURPOSE: This study compared two quantitative semiautomated software packages for volumetric analysis of the left ventricle (LV) by magnetic resonance (MR) imaging using two-dimensional (2D) cine balanced steady-state free precession (b-SSFP) sequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 46 consecutive patients who underwent cardiac MR imaging for various indications. Two-dimensional cine b-SSFP sequences were used to assess the LV. Data sets were evaluated with two dedicated software packages: ViewForum, version 4.2, and Argus, version Va60C. Results were compared with Student's t test for paired samples, Pearson's r correlation coefficient and R2 coefficient of determination; ejection fraction differences were assessed with Bland-Altman analysis. The time required for analysis was also recorded. RESULTS: We observed very high levels of concordance and reproducibility. High correlation was observed for ejection fraction (p>0.05; r=0.9; R (2)=0.82). The time required for analysis was 7.6+/-2.78 min vs. 7.52+/-2.4 min (p>0.05; r=0.85; R (2)=0.73). Intraobserver and interobserver variability did not show significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: LV volume evaluation is an integral part of cardiac MR imaging. In our experience, there is no significant difference between the commonly used software packages in either quantitative output or time required for analysis.
PURPOSE: This study compared two quantitative semiautomated software packages for volumetric analysis of the left ventricle (LV) by magnetic resonance (MR) imaging using two-dimensional (2D) cine balanced steady-state free precession (b-SSFP) sequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 46 consecutive patients who underwent cardiac MR imaging for various indications. Two-dimensional cine b-SSFP sequences were used to assess the LV. Data sets were evaluated with two dedicated software packages: ViewForum, version 4.2, and Argus, version Va60C. Results were compared with Student's t test for paired samples, Pearson's r correlation coefficient and R2 coefficient of determination; ejection fraction differences were assessed with Bland-Altman analysis. The time required for analysis was also recorded. RESULTS: We observed very high levels of concordance and reproducibility. High correlation was observed for ejection fraction (p>0.05; r=0.9; R (2)=0.82). The time required for analysis was 7.6+/-2.78 min vs. 7.52+/-2.4 min (p>0.05; r=0.85; R (2)=0.73). Intraobserver and interobserver variability did not show significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: LV volume evaluation is an integral part of cardiac MR imaging. In our experience, there is no significant difference between the commonly used software packages in either quantitative output or time required for analysis.
Authors: H Thiele; E Nagel; I Paetsch; B Schnackenburg; A Bornstedt; M Kouwenhoven; A Wahl; G Schuler; E Fleck Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Khaled Alfakih; Sven Plein; Holger Thiele; Tim Jones; John P Ridgway; Mohan U Sivananthan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Lissa Sugeng; Victor Mor-Avi; Lynn Weinert; Johannes Niel; Christian Ebner; Regina Steringer-Mascherbauer; Frank Schmidt; Christian Galuschky; Georg Schummers; Roberto M Lang; Hans-Joachim Nesser Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-08-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Robert Jan M van Geuns; Timo Baks; Ed H B M Gronenschild; Jean-Paul M M Aben; Piotr A Wielopolski; Filippo Cademartiri; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M A Pfeffer; E Braunwald; L A Moyé; L Basta; E J Brown; T E Cuddy; B R Davis; E M Geltman; S Goldman; G C Flaker Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1992-09-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Francesco Secchi; Marcello Petrini; Giovanni Di Leo; Francesco Bandera; Serenella Castelvecchio; Marco Guazzi; Lorenzo Menicanti; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Lijia Wang; Mengchao Pei; Noel C F Codella; Minisha Kochar; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Jianqi Li; Martin R Prince; Yi Wang Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-02-08 Impact factor: 3.411