Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2009
Agreement between methods of measurement of mean aortic wall thickness by MRI.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rosero Eric B, Peshock Ronald M, Khera Amit, Clagett G Patrick, Lo Hao, Timaran Carlos
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between three methods of calculation of mean aortic wall thickness (MAWT) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: High-resolution MRI of the infrarenal abdominal aorta was performed on 70 subjects with a history of coronary artery disease who were part of a multi-ethnic population-based sample. MAWT was calculated as the mean distance between the adventitial and luminal aortic boundaries using three different methods: average distance at four standard positions (AWT-4P), average distance at 100 automated positions (AWT-100P), and using a mathematical computation derived from the total vessel and luminal areas (AWT-VA). Bland-Altman plots and Passing-Bablok regression analyses were used to assess agreement between methods.
RESULTS: Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated a positive bias of 3.02+/-7.31% between the AWT-VA and the AWT-4P methods, and of 1.76+/-6.82% between the AWT-100P and the AWT-4P methods. Passing-Bablok regression analyses demonstrated constant bias between the AWT-4P method and the other two methods. Proportional bias was, however, not evident among the three methods.
CONCLUSION: MRI methods of measurement of MAWT using a limited number of positions of the aortic wall systematically underestimate the MAWT value compared with the method that calculates MAWT from the vessel areas.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: High-resolution MRI of the infrarenal abdominal aorta was performed on 70 subjects with a history of coronary artery disease who were part of a multi-ethnic population-based sample. MAWT was calculated as the mean distance between the adventitial and luminal aortic boundaries using three different methods: average distance at four standard positions (AWT-4P), average distance at 100 automated positions (AWT-100P), and using a mathematical computation derived from the total vessel and luminal areas (AWT-VA). Bland-Altman plots and Passing-Bablok regression analyses were used to assess agreement between methods.
RESULTS: Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated a positive bias of 3.02+/-7.31% between the AWT-VA and the AWT-4P methods, and of 1.76+/-6.82% between the AWT-100P and the AWT-4P methods. Passing-Bablok regression analyses demonstrated constant bias between the AWT-4P method and the other two methods. Proportional bias was, however, not evident among the three methods.
CONCLUSION: MRI methods of measurement of MAWT using a limited number of positions of the aortic wall systematically underestimate the MAWT value compared with the method that calculates MAWT from the vessel areas.