TY - JOUR
T1 - Mitral regurgitation quantification by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains reproducible between software solutions
AU - Grafton-Clarke, Ciaran
AU - Thornton, George
AU - Fidock, Benjamin
AU - Archer, Gareth
AU - Hose, Rod
AU - van der Geest, Rob J.
AU - Zhong, Liang
AU - Swift, Andrew J.
AU - Wild, James M.
AU - De Gárate, Estefania
AU - Bucciarelli-Ducci, Chiara
AU - Plein, Sven
AU - Treibel, Thomas A.
AU - Flather, Marcus
AU - Vassiliou, Vassilios S.
AU - Garg, Pankaj
N1 - Funding Information: This work was supported by Wellcome Trust [220703, 215799].
Rights retention statement: For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
PY - 2023/5/10
Y1 - 2023/5/10
N2 - Background: The reproducibility of mitral regurgitation (MR) quantification by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging using different software solutions remains unclear. This research aimed to investigate the reproducibility of MR quantification between two software solutions: MASS (version 2019 EXP, LUMC, Netherlands) and CAAS (version 5.2, Pie Medical Imaging). Methods: CMR data of 35 patients with MR (12 primary MR, 13 mitral valve repair/replacement, and ten secondary MR) was used. Four methods of MR volume quantification were studied, including two 4D-flow CMR methods (MR MVAV and MR Jet) and two non-4D-flow techniques (MR Standard and MR LVRV). We conducted within-software and inter-software correlation and agreement analyses. Results: All methods demonstrated significant correlation between the two software solutions: MR Standard(r=0.92, p<0.001), MR LVRV(r=0.95, p<0.001), MR Jet(r=0.86, p<0.001), and MR MVAV(r=0.91, p<0.001). Between CAAS and MASS, MR Jet and MR MVAV, compared to each of the four methods, were the only methods not to be associated with significant bias. Conclusions: We conclude that 4D-flow CMR methods demonstrate equivalent reproducibility to non-4D-flow methods but greater levels of agreement between software solutions.
AB - Background: The reproducibility of mitral regurgitation (MR) quantification by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging using different software solutions remains unclear. This research aimed to investigate the reproducibility of MR quantification between two software solutions: MASS (version 2019 EXP, LUMC, Netherlands) and CAAS (version 5.2, Pie Medical Imaging). Methods: CMR data of 35 patients with MR (12 primary MR, 13 mitral valve repair/replacement, and ten secondary MR) was used. Four methods of MR volume quantification were studied, including two 4D-flow CMR methods (MR MVAV and MR Jet) and two non-4D-flow techniques (MR Standard and MR LVRV). We conducted within-software and inter-software correlation and agreement analyses. Results: All methods demonstrated significant correlation between the two software solutions: MR Standard(r=0.92, p<0.001), MR LVRV(r=0.95, p<0.001), MR Jet(r=0.86, p<0.001), and MR MVAV(r=0.91, p<0.001). Between CAAS and MASS, MR Jet and MR MVAV, compared to each of the four methods, were the only methods not to be associated with significant bias. Conclusions: We conclude that 4D-flow CMR methods demonstrate equivalent reproducibility to non-4D-flow methods but greater levels of agreement between software solutions.
KW - Magnetic resonance imaging
KW - Mitral valve insufficiency
KW - Reproducibility of results
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85160848848&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17200.3
DO - 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17200.3
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85160848848
VL - 6
JO - Wellcome Open Research
JF - Wellcome Open Research
SN - 2398-502X
M1 - 253
ER -