Insights into Imaging

Table 4 Intra- and inter-observer variability and the comparison between 2D and 3D k-t BLAST in terms of global LV volume parameters and reporting time. Parameters are expressed as mean ± SD; p value Student’s paired test; r value Pearson’s correlation; 95% LA limits of agreement with Bland-Altman analysis

From: Magnetic resonance assessment of left ventricular volumes and mass using a single-breath-hold 3D k-t BLAST cine b-SSFP in comparison with multiple-breath-hold 2D cine b-SSFP

	Intra-observer					Inter-observer
3D k-t BLAST	1st analysis	2nd analysis	p value	r value	95% LA	1st observer	2nd observer	p value	r value	95% LA
EF (%)	43 ± 15	43 ± 15	>0.05	0.99	1.75; -2.23	43 ± 15	41 ± 14	<0.05	0.96	10.2; -6.5
ED wall mass (g)	81 ± 24	82 ± 24	>0.05	0.99	3.8; -4.1	81 ± 24	88 ± 24	<0.05	0.93	10.6; -24.3
Report time (min)	29 ± 7	29 ± 7	>0.05	0.99	2.5; -2.1	29 ± 7	32 ± 7	<0.05	0.89	3.1; -10.2
2D	1st analysis	2nd analysis				1st observer	2nd observer
EF (%)	48 ± 15	48 ± 15	>0.05	0.99	2.3; -1.7	48 ± 15	46 ± 14	<0.05	0.96	9.8; -5.9
ED wall mass (g)	72 ± 23	72 ± 23	>0.05	0.99	6.8; -4.9	72 ± 23	76 ± 23	<0.05	0.92	13.9; -20.5
Report time (min)	8 ± 3	8 ± 2	>0.05	0.90	2.2; -2.7	8 ± 3	9 ± 3	<0.05	0.64	3.2; -6.4
2D vs 3D k-t BLAST	2D	3D k-t BLAST				2D	3D k-t BLAST
	2nd analysis	2nd analysis				1st observer	2nd observer
EF (%)	48 ± 15	43 ± 15	<0.05	0.99	6.56; 2.75	46 ± 14	41 ± 14	<0.05	0.99	7.9; 2.2
ED wall mass (g)	72 ± 23	82 ± 24	<0.05	0.98	0.4; -20.4	76 ± 23	88 ± 24	<0.05	0.96	-0.5; -24.7
Report time (min)	8 ± 2	29 ± 7	<0.05	0.25	-6.9; -34.4	9 ± 3	29 ± 7	<0.05	0.16	-4.8; -34.1

Back to article page