Abstract
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 (MRMVAV and MRJet) and two non-4D-flow techniques (MRStandard and MRLVRV). We conducted within-software and inter-software correlation and agreement analyses. Results: All methods demonstrated significant correlation between the two software solutions: MRStandard (r=0.92, p<0.001), MRLVRV (r=0.95, p<0.001), MRJet (r=0.86, p<0.001), and MRMVAV (r=0.91, p<0.001). Between CAAS and MASS, MRJet and MRMVAV, 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.
Highlights
Mitral regurgitation (MR) is one of the most common types of valvular heart disease and is one of the most frequent indications for valve surgery[1]
Between CAAS and MASS, MRJet and MRMVAV, compared to each of the four methods, were the only methods not to be associated article can be found at the end of the article
Despite being the most strongly correlated method between software solutions, MRStandard was the only method to result in significant bias in agreement between CAAS and MASS mitral regurgitation (MR) quantification (Figure 2)
Summary
Mitral regurgitation (MR) is one of the most common types of valvular heart disease and is one of the most frequent indications for valve surgery[1]. One of the key strengths of CMR quantification of MR is that it allows many different ways to quantify MR4 These include direct and indirect methods using standard techniques and emerging four-dimensional (4D) flow methods[5]. Our recent work demonstrated that 4D-flow methods of MR quantification may offer superior precision for reproducibility compared to standard methods[5]. Demonstrating reproducibility between different software solutions is vital as clinical outcome research within CMR imaging is multiplatform and multicentre. 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)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
