Why the study?
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance derived ventricular volumes and function guide clinical decision-making, but the efficiency and clinical applicability of commercially available artificial intelligence methods for biventricular volumetric analysis needed evaluation.
Does automated AI biventricular CMR volumetric analysis provide comparable accuracy and improved efficiency compared to manual analysis?
Does automated AI biventricular CMR volumetric analysis provide comparable accuracy and improved efficiency compared to manual analysis?
AI-based biventricular CMR volumetric analysis provides clinically valid outcomes comparable to manual methods while significantly reducing analysis time.
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) derived ventricular volumes and function guide clinical decision-making for various cardiac pathologies. We aimed to evaluate the efficiency and clinical applicability of a commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) method for performing biventricular volumetric analysis. Three-hundred CMR studies (100 with normal CMR findings, 50 dilated cardiomyopathy, 50 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, 50 ischaemic heart disease and 50 congenital or valvular heart disease) were randomly selected from database. Manual biventricular volumetric analysis (CMRtools) results were derived from clinical reports and automated volumetric analyses were performed using short axis volumetry AI function of CircleCVI 42 v5.12 software. For 20 studies, a combined method of manually adjusted AI contours was tested and all three methods were timed. Clinicians` confidence in AI method was assessed using an online survey. Although agreement was better for left ventricle than right ventricle, AI analysis results were comparable to manual method. Manual adjustment of AI contours further improved agreement: within subject coefficient of variation decreased from 5.0% to 4.5% for left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) and from 9.9% to 7.1% for right ventricular EF. Twenty manual analyses were performed in 250 min 12 s whereas same task took 5 min 48 s using AI method. Clinicians were open to adopt AI but concerns about accuracy and validity were raised. The AI method provides clinically valid outcomes and saves significant time. To address concerns raised by survey participants and overcome shortcomings of the automated myocardial segmentation, visual assessment of contours and performing manual corrections where necessary appears to be a practical approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hatipoğlu et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: