Comparison of right atrial volume measurements using single-plane area-length and stack-of-short-axis methods: A 3.0 T cardiac magnetic resonance study.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Nabhat Noparatkailas, Ankavipar Saprungruang, Piyanun Sanguanwong, Angkana Sunthornram, Yongkasem Vorasettakarnkij, Monravee Tumkosit, Pairoj Chattranukulchai, Nonthikorn Theerasuwipakorn
{"title":"Comparison of right atrial volume measurements using single-plane area-length and stack-of-short-axis methods: A 3.0 T cardiac magnetic resonance study.","authors":"Nabhat Noparatkailas, Ankavipar Saprungruang, Piyanun Sanguanwong, Angkana Sunthornram, Yongkasem Vorasettakarnkij, Monravee Tumkosit, Pairoj Chattranukulchai, Nonthikorn Theerasuwipakorn","doi":"10.1186/s12880-025-01708-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The stack-of-short-axis volumes (SAX) summation and single-plane area-length (AL) methods are established approaches for right atrial (RA) volume quantification in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. However, data regarding the reliability and agreement between these methods are limited. Furthermore, there is no validation on whether to include the right atrial appendage (RAA) in the analysis. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of the single-plane AL and SAX methods for measuring RA volumes and to assess the agreement between these two approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CMR (3.0T, Siemens) data from 40 healthy volunteers were analyzed to quantify RA volumes, both including and excluding RAA volume, using the SAX and single-plane (4-chamber view) AL methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of 40 participants was 33.6 ± 6.1 years (50% male). RA volumes measured by the SAX method were significantly larger than those obtained by the single-plane AL method (maximum RA volume including RAA: 84.9 ± 22.9 vs. 63.7 ± 16.0 ml, p-value < 0.001; minimum RA volume including RAA: 45.3 ± 15.9 vs. 34.7 ± 12.2 ml, p-value < 0.001). RA ejection fraction (RAEF) was the only parameter that showed no statistical difference between the two methods. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated poor agreement between the techniques, with substantial biases and wide limits of agreement. Both methods exhibited excellent reproducibility when the RAA volume was included (ICC = 0.89-0.96). However, reproducibility was reduced when the RAA volume was excluded, particularly in terms of inter-observer agreement (ICC = 0.73-0.96).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The single-plane AL method underestimates RA volumes compared to the SAX method, and the poor agreement between the two techniques suggests they should not be used interchangeably. RA volume measurements should be interpreted using method-specific reference values. Additionally, including the RAA in RA volume quantification-regardless of the method-may improve measurement reproducibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":9020,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Imaging","volume":"25 1","pages":"160"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12080051/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-025-01708-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The stack-of-short-axis volumes (SAX) summation and single-plane area-length (AL) methods are established approaches for right atrial (RA) volume quantification in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. However, data regarding the reliability and agreement between these methods are limited. Furthermore, there is no validation on whether to include the right atrial appendage (RAA) in the analysis. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of the single-plane AL and SAX methods for measuring RA volumes and to assess the agreement between these two approaches.

Methods: CMR (3.0T, Siemens) data from 40 healthy volunteers were analyzed to quantify RA volumes, both including and excluding RAA volume, using the SAX and single-plane (4-chamber view) AL methods.

Results: The mean age of 40 participants was 33.6 ± 6.1 years (50% male). RA volumes measured by the SAX method were significantly larger than those obtained by the single-plane AL method (maximum RA volume including RAA: 84.9 ± 22.9 vs. 63.7 ± 16.0 ml, p-value < 0.001; minimum RA volume including RAA: 45.3 ± 15.9 vs. 34.7 ± 12.2 ml, p-value < 0.001). RA ejection fraction (RAEF) was the only parameter that showed no statistical difference between the two methods. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated poor agreement between the techniques, with substantial biases and wide limits of agreement. Both methods exhibited excellent reproducibility when the RAA volume was included (ICC = 0.89-0.96). However, reproducibility was reduced when the RAA volume was excluded, particularly in terms of inter-observer agreement (ICC = 0.73-0.96).

Conclusions: The single-plane AL method underestimates RA volumes compared to the SAX method, and the poor agreement between the two techniques suggests they should not be used interchangeably. RA volume measurements should be interpreted using method-specific reference values. Additionally, including the RAA in RA volume quantification-regardless of the method-may improve measurement reproducibility.

单面面积长度法和短轴叠法测量右心房容积的比较:3.0 T心脏磁共振研究。
目的:短轴叠积(SAX)和单面面积长度(AL)法是心血管磁共振(CMR)成像中右心房(RA)体积定量的常用方法。然而,关于这些方法之间的可靠性和一致性的数据是有限的。此外,在分析中是否包括右心房附件(RAA)也没有验证。本研究旨在评估单平面AL和SAX方法测量RA体积的可靠性,并评估这两种方法之间的一致性。方法:对40名健康志愿者的CMR (3.0T, Siemens)数据进行分析,采用SAX和单平面(4室视图)AL方法量化RA体积,包括RA体积和不包括RA体积。结果:40名参与者的平均年龄为33.6±6.1岁(男性占50%)。SAX法测得的RA体积明显大于单平面AL法测得的RA体积(最大RA体积包括RAA: 84.9±22.9 ml vs. 63.7±16.0 ml, p值)结论:单平面AL法与SAX法相比低估了RA体积,两种技术之间的一致性较差,提示它们不应交替使用。RA体积测量值应使用特定于方法的参考值进行解释。此外,无论采用何种方法,在RA体积定量中包括RAA都可以提高测量的再现性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Imaging
BMC Medical Imaging RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.70%
发文量
198
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Imaging is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in the development, evaluation, and use of imaging techniques and image processing tools to diagnose and manage disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信