Key result
Computer-aided ascending aorta measurement correlates well with manual observers within ~1.2 mm maximum variability.
Why the study?
The variability of ascending aorta diameter measurements using ECG-gated MDCT and CAD software remains unknown despite their use in developing novel transcatheter therapies.
Does computer-aided diagnosis software provide reproducible measurements of the ascending aorta diameter compared to manual observers on ECG-gated MDCT?
Observational (n=30)
Does computer-aided diagnosis software provide reproducible measurements of the ascending aorta diameter compared to manual observers on ECG-gated MDCT?
p-value: p=<0.001
Computer-aided diagnosis software is as reproducible as an experienced reader for measuring ascending aorta diameter on ECG-gated MDCT, though a maximum variability of 1.2 mm should be considered.
Supports CAD reproducibility for ascending aorta on MDCT; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Recently, morphometric measurements of the ascending aorta have been done with ECG-gated multidector computerized tomography (MDCT) to help the development of future novel transcatheter therapies (TCT); nevertheless, the variability of such measurements remains unknown. Thirty patients referred for ECG-gated CT thoracic angiography were evaluated. Continuous reformations of the ascending aorta, perpendicular to the centerline, were obtained automatically with a commercially available computer aided diagnosis (CAD). Then measurements of the maximal diameter were done with the CAD and manually by two observers (separately). Measurements were repeated one month later. The Bland-Altman method, Spearman coefficients, and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to evaluate the variability, the correlation, and the differences between observers. The interobserver variability for maximal diameter between the two observers was up to 1.2 mm with limits of agreement [-1.5, +0.9] mm; whereas the intraobserver limits were [-1.2, +1.0] mm for the first observer and [-0.8, +0.8] mm for the second observer. The intraobserver CAD variability was 0.8 mm. The correlation was good between observers and the CAD (0.980-0.986); however, significant differences do exist (P<0.001). The maximum variability observed was 1.2 mm and should be considered in reports of measurements of the ascending aorta. The CAD is as reproducible as an experienced reader.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lu et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Patients referred for ECG-gated CT thoracic angiography (n=30). Computer aided diagnosis (CAD) software vs. Manual measurement by two observers was evaluated on Interobserver and intraobserver variability for maximal diameter (p=<0.001). Computer aided diagnosis software for measuring ascending aorta diameter showed good correlation with manual observers (0.980-0.986), with a maximum variability of 1.2 mm.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: