CT肺血管造影手工测量RV/LV比值的可重复性

BJR open Pub Date : 2022-11-28 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1259/bjro.20220041
Sarah Lanham, Ahmed Maiter, Andrew J Swift, Krit Dwivedi, Samer Alabed, Oscar Evans, Michael J Sharkey, Suzanne Matthews, Christopher S Johns
{"title":"CT肺血管造影手工测量RV/LV比值的可重复性","authors":"Sarah Lanham, Ahmed Maiter, Andrew J Swift, Krit Dwivedi, Samer Alabed, Oscar Evans, Michael J Sharkey, Suzanne Matthews, Christopher S Johns","doi":"10.1259/bjro.20220041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction carries elevated risk in acute pulmonary embolism (PE). An increased ratio between the size of the right and left ventricles (RV/LV ratio) is a biomarker of RV dysfunction. This study evaluated the reproducibility of RV/LV ratio measurement on CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>20 inpatient CTPA scans performed to assess for acute PE were retrospectively identified from a tertiary UK centre. Each scan was evaluated by 14 radiologists who provided a qualitative overall opinion on the presence of RV dysfunction and measured the RV/LV ratio. Using a threshold of 1.0, the RV/LV ratio measurements were classified as positive (≥1.0) or negative (<1.0) for RV dysfunction. Interobserver agreement was quantified using the Fleiss κ and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Qualitative opinion of RV dysfunction showed weak agreement (κ = 0.42, 95% CI 0.37-0.46). The mean RV/LV ratio measurement for all cases was 1.28 ± 0.68 with significant variation between reporters (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Although agreement for RV/LV measurement was good (ICC = 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.91), categorisation of RV dysfunction according to RV/LV ratio measurements showed weak agreement (κ = 0.46, 95% CI 0.41-0.50).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both qualitative opinion and quantitative manual RV/LV ratio measurement show poor agreement for identifying RV dysfunction on CTPA.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>Caution should be exerted if using manual RV/LV ratio measurements to inform clinical risk stratification and management decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":72419,"journal":{"name":"BJR open","volume":"1 1","pages":"20220041"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10941330/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The reproducibility of manual RV/LV ratio measurement on CT pulmonary angiography.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Lanham, Ahmed Maiter, Andrew J Swift, Krit Dwivedi, Samer Alabed, Oscar Evans, Michael J Sharkey, Suzanne Matthews, Christopher S Johns\",\"doi\":\"10.1259/bjro.20220041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction carries elevated risk in acute pulmonary embolism (PE). An increased ratio between the size of the right and left ventricles (RV/LV ratio) is a biomarker of RV dysfunction. This study evaluated the reproducibility of RV/LV ratio measurement on CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>20 inpatient CTPA scans performed to assess for acute PE were retrospectively identified from a tertiary UK centre. Each scan was evaluated by 14 radiologists who provided a qualitative overall opinion on the presence of RV dysfunction and measured the RV/LV ratio. Using a threshold of 1.0, the RV/LV ratio measurements were classified as positive (≥1.0) or negative (<1.0) for RV dysfunction. Interobserver agreement was quantified using the Fleiss κ and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Qualitative opinion of RV dysfunction showed weak agreement (κ = 0.42, 95% CI 0.37-0.46). The mean RV/LV ratio measurement for all cases was 1.28 ± 0.68 with significant variation between reporters (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Although agreement for RV/LV measurement was good (ICC = 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.91), categorisation of RV dysfunction according to RV/LV ratio measurements showed weak agreement (κ = 0.46, 95% CI 0.41-0.50).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both qualitative opinion and quantitative manual RV/LV ratio measurement show poor agreement for identifying RV dysfunction on CTPA.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>Caution should be exerted if using manual RV/LV ratio measurements to inform clinical risk stratification and management decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72419,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJR open\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"20220041\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10941330/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJR open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20220041\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJR open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20220041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

右心室(RV)功能障碍会增加急性肺栓塞(PE)的风险。右心室和左心室大小之间的比率(RV/LV比率)增加是RV功能障碍的生物标志物。本研究评估了CT肺动脉造影(CTPA)中RV/LV比值测量的可重复性。从英国一家三级中心对20名住院患者进行CTPA扫描以评估急性PE进行了回顾性鉴定。每次扫描都由14名放射科医生进行评估,他们对RV功能障碍的存在提供了定性的总体意见,并测量了RV/LV比率。使用1.0的阈值,RV/LV比率测量被分为RV功能障碍的阳性(≥1.0)或阴性(<1.0)。使用κ(κ)和组内相关系数(ICC)量化观察者之间的一致性。RV功能障碍的定性意见显示弱一致性(κ=0.42,95% CI 0.37–0.46)。所有病例的平均RV/LV比值测量值为1.28±0.68,报告者之间存在显著差异(p<0.001)。尽管RV/LV测量值一致性良好(ICC=0.83,95% CI 0.73–0.91),根据RV/LV比率测量对RV功能障碍的分类显示出微弱的一致性(κ=0.46,95% CI 0.41–0.50)。定性意见和定量手动RV/LV比值测量显示,在CTPA上识别RV功能障碍的一致性较差。如果使用手动RV/LV比率测量来告知临床风险分层和管理决策,则应注意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The reproducibility of manual RV/LV ratio measurement on CT pulmonary angiography.

Objectives: Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction carries elevated risk in acute pulmonary embolism (PE). An increased ratio between the size of the right and left ventricles (RV/LV ratio) is a biomarker of RV dysfunction. This study evaluated the reproducibility of RV/LV ratio measurement on CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA).

Methods: 20 inpatient CTPA scans performed to assess for acute PE were retrospectively identified from a tertiary UK centre. Each scan was evaluated by 14 radiologists who provided a qualitative overall opinion on the presence of RV dysfunction and measured the RV/LV ratio. Using a threshold of 1.0, the RV/LV ratio measurements were classified as positive (≥1.0) or negative (<1.0) for RV dysfunction. Interobserver agreement was quantified using the Fleiss κ and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: Qualitative opinion of RV dysfunction showed weak agreement (κ = 0.42, 95% CI 0.37-0.46). The mean RV/LV ratio measurement for all cases was 1.28 ± 0.68 with significant variation between reporters (p < 0.001). Although agreement for RV/LV measurement was good (ICC = 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.91), categorisation of RV dysfunction according to RV/LV ratio measurements showed weak agreement (κ = 0.46, 95% CI 0.41-0.50).

Conclusion: Both qualitative opinion and quantitative manual RV/LV ratio measurement show poor agreement for identifying RV dysfunction on CTPA.

Advances in knowledge: Caution should be exerted if using manual RV/LV ratio measurements to inform clinical risk stratification and management decisions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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