OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate variability in aortic measurements with multiple imaging modalities in clinical centers by comparing with a standardized measuring protocol implemented in a core laboratory. BACKGROUND: In patients with aortic disease, imaging of thoracic aorta plays a major role in risk stratifying individuals for life-threatening complications and in determining timing of surgical intervention. However, standardization of the procedures for performance of aortic measurements is lacking. METHODS: To characterize the diversity of methods used in clinical practice, we compared aortic measurements performed by echocardiography, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the 6 GenTAC (National Registry of Genetically Triggered Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Cardiovascular Conditions) clinical centers to those performed at the imaging core laboratory in 965 studies. Each center acquired and analyzed their images according to local protocols. The same images were subsequently analyzed blindly by the core laboratory, on the basis of a standardized protocol for all imaging modalities. Paired measurements from clinical centers and core laboratory were compared by mean of differences and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: For all segments of the ascending aorta, echocardiography showed a higher ICC (0.84 to 0.93) than CT (0.84) and MRI (0.82 to 0.90), with smaller mean of differences. MRI showed higher ICC for the arch and descending aorta (0.91 and 0.93). In a mixed adjusted model, the different imaging modalities and clinical centers were identified as sources of variability between clinical and core laboratory measurements, whereas age groups or diagnosis at enrollment were not. CONCLUSIONS: By comparing core laboratory with measurements from clinical centers, our study identified important sources of variability in aortic measurements. Furthermore, our findings with regard to CT and MRI suggest a need for imaging societies to work toward the development of unifying acquisition protocols and common measuring methods.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate variability in aortic measurements with multiple imaging modalities in clinical centers by comparing with a standardized measuring protocol implemented in a core laboratory. BACKGROUND: In patients with aortic disease, imaging of thoracic aorta plays a major role in risk stratifying individuals for life-threatening complications and in determining timing of surgical intervention. However, standardization of the procedures for performance of aortic measurements is lacking. METHODS: To characterize the diversity of methods used in clinical practice, we compared aortic measurements performed by echocardiography, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the 6 GenTAC (National Registry of Genetically Triggered Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Cardiovascular Conditions) clinical centers to those performed at the imaging core laboratory in 965 studies. Each center acquired and analyzed their images according to local protocols. The same images were subsequently analyzed blindly by the core laboratory, on the basis of a standardized protocol for all imaging modalities. Paired measurements from clinical centers and core laboratory were compared by mean of differences and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: For all segments of the ascending aorta, echocardiography showed a higher ICC (0.84 to 0.93) than CT (0.84) and MRI (0.82 to 0.90), with smaller mean of differences. MRI showed higher ICC for the arch and descending aorta (0.91 and 0.93). In a mixed adjusted model, the different imaging modalities and clinical centers were identified as sources of variability between clinical and core laboratory measurements, whereas age groups or diagnosis at enrollment were not. CONCLUSIONS: By comparing core laboratory with measurements from clinical centers, our study identified important sources of variability in aortic measurements. Furthermore, our findings with regard to CT and MRI suggest a need for imaging societies to work toward the development of unifying acquisition protocols and common measuring methods.
Authors: Leo Lopez; Steven D Colan; Peter C Frommelt; Gregory J Ensing; Kathleen Kendall; Adel K Younoszai; Wyman W Lai; Tal Geva Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Loren F Hiratzka; George L Bakris; Joshua A Beckman; Robert M Bersin; Vincent F Carr; Donald E Casey; Kim A Eagle; Luke K Hermann; Eric M Isselbacher; Ella A Kazerooni; Nicholas T Kouchoukos; Bruce W Lytle; Dianna M Milewicz; David L Reich; Souvik Sen; Julie A Shinn; Lars G Svensson; David M Williams Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Roberto M Lang; Michelle Bierig; Richard B Devereux; Frank A Flachskampf; Elyse Foster; Patricia A Pellikka; Michael H Picard; Mary J Roman; James Seward; Jack S Shanewise; Scott D Solomon; Kirk T Spencer; Martin St John Sutton; William J Stewart Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Pamela S Douglas; Jeanne M DeCara; Richard B Devereux; Shelly Duckworth; Julius M Gardin; Wael A Jaber; Annitta J Morehead; Jae K Oh; Michael H Picard; Scott D Solomon; Kevin Wei; Neil J Weissman Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Dorinna D Mendoza; Minisha Kochar; Richard B Devereux; Craig T Basson; James K Min; Kathryn Holmes; Harry C Dietz; Dianna M Milewicz; Scott A LeMaire; Reed E Pyeritz; Joseph E Bavaria; Cheryl L Maslen; Howard Song; Barbara L Kroner; Kim A Eagle; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-07-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Benjamin S Brooke; Jennifer P Habashi; Daniel P Judge; Nishant Patel; Bart Loeys; Harry C Dietz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-06-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mary J Roman; Norma L Pugh; Richard B Devereux; Kim A Eagle; Kathryn Holmes; Scott A LeMaire; Rita K Milewski; Shaine A Morris; Siddharth K Prakash; Reed E Pyeritz; William J Ravekes; Ralph V Shohet; Howard K Song; Federico M Asch Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Joseph M Krepp; Mary J Roman; Richard B Devereux; Adrienne Bruce; Siddharth K Prakash; Shaine A Morris; Dianna M Milewicz; Kathryn W Holmes; William Ravekes; Ralph V Shohet; Reed E Pyeritz; Cheryl L Maslen; Barbara L Kroner; Kim A Eagle; Liliana Preiss; Federico M Asch Journal: Congenit Heart Dis Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Ignas B Houben; Nitesh Nama; Frans L Moll; Joost A van Herwaarden; David A Nordsletten; David M Williams; Himanshu J Patel; C Alberto Figueroa; Nicholas S Burris Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Brian Trinh; Iram Dubin; Ozair Rahman; Marcos P Ferreira Botelho; Nicholas Naro; James C Carr; Jeremy D Collins; Alex J Barker Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Mary J Roman; Richard B Devereux; Liliana R Preiss; Federico M Asch; Kim A Eagle; Kathryn W Holmes; Scott A LeMaire; Cheryl L Maslen; Dianna M Milewicz; Shaine A Morris; Siddharth K Prakash; Reed E Pyeritz; William J Ravekes; Ralph V Shohet; Howard K Song; Jonathan W Weinsaft Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2017-06
Authors: Nicholas S Burris; Benjamin A Hoff; Himanshu J Patel; Ella A Kazerooni; Brian D Ross Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 7.792