» Articles » PMID: 26215273

Quantification of LV Function and Mass by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: Multi-center Variability and Consensus Contours

Abstract

Background: High reproducibility of LV mass and volume measurement from cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been shown within single centers. However, the extent to which contours may vary from center to center, due to different training protocols, is unknown. We aimed to quantify sources of variation between many centers, and provide a multi-center consensus ground truth dataset for benchmarking automated processing tools and facilitating training for new readers in CMR analysis.

Methods: Seven independent expert readers, representing seven experienced CMR core laboratories, analyzed fifteen cine CMR data sets in accordance with their standard operating protocols and SCMR guidelines. Consensus contours were generated for each image according to a statistical optimization scheme that maximized contour placement agreement between readers.

Results: Reader-consensus agreement was better than inter-reader agreement (end-diastolic volume 14.7 ml vs 15.2-28.4 ml; end-systolic volume 13.2 ml vs 14.0-21.5 ml; LV mass 17.5 g vs 20.2-34.5 g; ejection fraction 4.2 % vs 4.6-7.5 %). Compared with consensus contours, readers were very consistent (small variability across cases within each reader), but bias varied between readers due to differences in contouring protocols at each center. Although larger contour differences were found at the apex and base, the main effect on volume was due to small but consistent differences in the position of the contours in all regions of the LV.

Conclusions: A multi-center consensus dataset was established for the purposes of benchmarking and training. Achieving consensus on contour drawing protocol between centers before analysis, or bias correction after analysis, is required when collating multi-center results.

Citing Articles

Exploring the association between tissue sodium content, heart failure subtypes, and symptom burden: insights from magnetic resonance imaging.

Hashemi D, Weiss K, Doeblin P, Blum M, Tanacli R, Camdzic H Front Cardiovasc Med. 2025; 12:1458152.

PMID: 39931543 PMC: 11807970. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2025.1458152.


Accelerated cardiac magnetic resonance imaging using deep learning for volumetric assessment in children.

Koechli M, Callaghan F, Burkhardt B, Lohezic M, Zhu X, Rucker B Pediatr Radiol. 2024; 54(10):1674-1685.

PMID: 39017676 PMC: 11377620. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-024-05978-6.


The beating heart: artificial intelligence for cardiovascular application in the clinic.

Villegas-Martinez M, de Villedon de Naide V, Muthurangu V, Bustin A MAGMA. 2024; 37(3):369-382.

PMID: 38907767 PMC: 11316708. DOI: 10.1007/s10334-024-01180-9.


Evaluation of deep learning estimation of whole heart anatomy from automated cardiovascular magnetic resonance short- and long-axis analyses in UK Biobank.

Muffoletto M, Xu H, Burns R, Suinesiaputra A, Nasopoulou A, Kunze K Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2024; 25(10):1374-1383.

PMID: 38723059 PMC: 11441036. DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jeae123.


The Role of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment of Mitral Regurgitation.

Botis I, Bazmpani M, Daios S, Ziakas A, Kamperidis V, Karamitsos T Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(6).

PMID: 38535064 PMC: 10969125. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14060644.


References
1.
Grothues F, Smith G, Moon J, Bellenger N, Collins P, Klein H . Comparison of interstudy reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance with two-dimensional echocardiography in normal subjects and in patients with heart failure or left ventricular hypertrophy. Am J Cardiol. 2002; 90(1):29-34. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9149(02)02381-0. View

2.
Bild D, Bluemke D, Burke G, Detrano R, Diez Roux A, Folsom A . Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis: objectives and design. Am J Epidemiol. 2002; 156(9):871-81. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwf113. View

3.
Warfield S, Zou K, Wells W . Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2004; 23(7):903-21. PMC: 1283110. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2004.828354. View

4.
Pattynama P, de Roos A, van der Wall E, VAN VOORTHUISEN A . Evaluation of cardiac function with magnetic resonance imaging. Am Heart J. 1994; 128(3):595-607. DOI: 10.1016/0002-8703(94)90636-x. View

5.
Bottini P, CARR A, Prisant L, Flickinger F, Allison J, Gottdiener J . Magnetic resonance imaging compared to echocardiography to assess left ventricular mass in the hypertensive patient. Am J Hypertens. 1995; 8(3):221-8. DOI: 10.1016/0895-7061(94)00178-E. View