Influence of Reader Expertise on Myocardial Infarction Detection: A Comparative Study of Dark-Blood and Bright-Blood Late Gadolinium Enhancement MRI.

IF 7 1区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Investigative Radiology Pub Date : 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1097/RLI.0000000000001161
Bibi Martens, Lara R van der Meulen, Richard J Crawley, Yvonne J M van Cauteren, Martijn W Smulders, Sebastian Streukens, Babs M F Hendriks, Ivo P L Houben, Suzanne Gommers, Simon M Frey, Lloyd Brandts, Joachim E Wildberger, Amedeo Chiribiri, Robert J Holtackers
{"title":"Influence of Reader Expertise on Myocardial Infarction Detection: A Comparative Study of Dark-Blood and Bright-Blood Late Gadolinium Enhancement MRI.","authors":"Bibi Martens, Lara R van der Meulen, Richard J Crawley, Yvonne J M van Cauteren, Martijn W Smulders, Sebastian Streukens, Babs M F Hendriks, Ivo P L Houben, Suzanne Gommers, Simon M Frey, Lloyd Brandts, Joachim E Wildberger, Amedeo Chiribiri, Robert J Holtackers","doi":"10.1097/RLI.0000000000001161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the influence of reader training and experience on the detection of (small) myocardial infarctions (MIs) and the assessment of ischemic scar transmurality using dark-blood late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and bright-blood LGE magnetic resonance imaging. It was hypothesized that dark-blood LGE simplifies the detection of (small) MIs for less experienced readers, compared with bright-blood LGE imaging.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>One hundred patients referred for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for suspected ischemic scar were retrospectively included. Dark-blood LGE was performed first, followed by bright-blood LGE. Nine clinicians, grouped into three levels based on their training and experience, assessed the LGE images for the presence of MI and ischemic scar transmurality. Their assessment was subsequently compared with a European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging level 3 consultant. Reader confidence was evaluated with a 4-point Likert scale. Multilevel logistic regression was used to compare the 2 LGE methods and assess differences in myocardial infarction detection and transmurality among the 3 experience levels. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were performed to compare the reader confidence between the 2 LGE methods, whereas Friedman omnibus tests were conducted to assess differences in reader confidence among the 3 experience levels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Dark-blood LGE resulted in increased correct detection of MIs compared with bright-blood LGE for both level 1 (87.3% vs 82.7%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.55 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94-2.54], P = 0.083) and level 2 readers (89.7% vs 83.0%, OR: 2.05 [95% CI: 1.20-3.51], P = 0.009). There was no significant difference observed between dark-blood LGE and bright-blood LGE for level 3 readers (88.7% vs 87.0%, OR: 1.20 [95% CI: 0.70-2.06], P = 0.495). Level 2 readers significantly detected more small MIs correctly when using dark-blood LGE compared with bright-blood LGE (66.7% vs 50.8%, OR: 2.40 [95% CI: 1.03-5.60], P = 0.042). All experience levels showed significantly increased confidence in presence of ischemic scar and transmurality with dark-blood LGE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Readily available dark-blood LGE can assist less experienced readers in correctly detecting and assessing (small) MIs compared with conventional bright-blood LGE. Regardless of experience level, dark-blood LGE improves reader confidence in assessing the presence and transmurality of MIs.</p>","PeriodicalId":14486,"journal":{"name":"Investigative Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Investigative Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000001161","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of reader training and experience on the detection of (small) myocardial infarctions (MIs) and the assessment of ischemic scar transmurality using dark-blood late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and bright-blood LGE magnetic resonance imaging. It was hypothesized that dark-blood LGE simplifies the detection of (small) MIs for less experienced readers, compared with bright-blood LGE imaging.

Materials and methods: One hundred patients referred for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for suspected ischemic scar were retrospectively included. Dark-blood LGE was performed first, followed by bright-blood LGE. Nine clinicians, grouped into three levels based on their training and experience, assessed the LGE images for the presence of MI and ischemic scar transmurality. Their assessment was subsequently compared with a European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging level 3 consultant. Reader confidence was evaluated with a 4-point Likert scale. Multilevel logistic regression was used to compare the 2 LGE methods and assess differences in myocardial infarction detection and transmurality among the 3 experience levels. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were performed to compare the reader confidence between the 2 LGE methods, whereas Friedman omnibus tests were conducted to assess differences in reader confidence among the 3 experience levels.

Results: Dark-blood LGE resulted in increased correct detection of MIs compared with bright-blood LGE for both level 1 (87.3% vs 82.7%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.55 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94-2.54], P = 0.083) and level 2 readers (89.7% vs 83.0%, OR: 2.05 [95% CI: 1.20-3.51], P = 0.009). There was no significant difference observed between dark-blood LGE and bright-blood LGE for level 3 readers (88.7% vs 87.0%, OR: 1.20 [95% CI: 0.70-2.06], P = 0.495). Level 2 readers significantly detected more small MIs correctly when using dark-blood LGE compared with bright-blood LGE (66.7% vs 50.8%, OR: 2.40 [95% CI: 1.03-5.60], P = 0.042). All experience levels showed significantly increased confidence in presence of ischemic scar and transmurality with dark-blood LGE.

Conclusions: Readily available dark-blood LGE can assist less experienced readers in correctly detecting and assessing (small) MIs compared with conventional bright-blood LGE. Regardless of experience level, dark-blood LGE improves reader confidence in assessing the presence and transmurality of MIs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Investigative Radiology
Investigative Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
16.40%
发文量
188
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Investigative Radiology publishes original, peer-reviewed reports on clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, and related modalities. Emphasis is on early and timely publication. Primarily research-oriented, the journal also includes a wide variety of features of interest to clinical radiologists.
期刊最新文献
Photon-Counting Detector CT Applications in Musculoskeletal Radiology. Focused Ultrasound: Noninvasive Image-Guided Therapy. Deep Learning-Enhanced Accelerated 2D TSE and 3D Superresolution Dixon TSE for Rapid Comprehensive Knee Joint Assessment. Hot Topics in Diagnostic Imaging-Encompassing Advances in MR, Photon-Counting CT, and Ultrasound. Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Musculoskeletal System: Clinical Applications and Opportunities to Improve Imaging Speed and Resolution.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1