BACKGROUND Quantitative results of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) image analysis influence clinical decision making. Image analysis is performed based on dedicated software. The manufacturers provide different analysis tools whose algorithms are often unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of software on quantification of left ventricular (LV) assessment, 2D flow measurement and T1- and T2-parametric mapping. METHODS Thirty-one data sets of patients who underwent a CMR Scan on 1.5 T were analyzed using three different software (Circle CVI: cvi42, Siemens Healthineers: Argus, Medis: Qmass/Qflow) by one reader blinded to former results. Cine steady state free precession short axis images were analyzed regarding LV ejection fraction (EF), end-systolic and end-diastolic volume (ESV, EDV) and LV mass. Phase-contrast magnetic resonance images were evaluated for forward stroke volume (SV) and peak velocity (Vmax). Pixel-wise generated native T1- and T2-maps were used to assess T1- and T2-time. Forty-five data sets were evaluated twice (15 per software) for intraobserver analysis. Equivalence was considered if the confidence interval of a paired assessment of two sofware was within a tolerance interval defined by ±1.96 highest standard deviation obtained by intraobserver analysis. RESULTS For each parameter, thirty data sets could be analyzed with all three software. All three software (A/B, A/C, B/C) were considered equivalent for LV EF, EDV, ESV, mass, 2D flow SV and T2-time. Differences between software were detected in flow measurement for Vmax and in parametric mapping for T1-time. For Vmax, equivalence was given between software A and C and for T1-time equivalence was given between software B and C. CONCLUSION Software had no impact on quantitative results of LV assessment, T2-time and SV based on 2D flow. In contrast to that, Vmax and T1-time may be influenced by software. CMR reports should contain the name and version of the software applied for image analysis to avoid misinterpretation upon follow-up and research examinations. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN12210850 . Registered 14 July 2017, retrospectively registered.

中文翻译：

---

心血管磁共振的量化：来自三个不同供应商的软件在评估左心室功能，2D流量和参数映射方面的协议。

背景技术心血管磁共振（CMR）图像分析的定量结果影响临床决策。图像分析是基于专用软件执行的。制造商提供了不同的分析工具，其算法通常是未知的。这项研究的目的是评估软件对量化左心室（LV）评估，2D流量测量以及T1和T2参数映射的影响。方法使用三种不同的软件（Circle CVI：cvi42，Siemens Healthineers：Argus，Medis：Qmass / Qflow）分析了对1.5T进行了CMR扫描的31位患者的数据，该数据对以前的结果不了解。对电影的稳定状态无进动短轴图像进行了左心室射血分数（EF），收缩末期和舒张末期容积（ESV，EDV）和左室质量的分析。评估相衬磁共振图像的向前行程量（SV）和峰值速度（Vmax）。逐像素生成的原始T1和T2映射用于评估T1和T2时间。对25个数据集进行了两次评估（每个软件15个）用于观察者内部分析。如果两个软件的配对评估的置信区间在通过观察者内部分析获得的最高标准偏差的±1.96定义的公差区间内，则考虑等效。结果对于每个参数，可以使用所有三个软件分析三十个数据集。所有这三个软件（A / B，A / C，B / C）都被认为等效于LV EF，EDV，ESV，质量，2D流量SV和T2时间。在Vmax的流量测量和T1时间的参数映射中检测到软件之间的差异。对于Vmax，在软件A和C之间给出了等效值，在软件B和C之间给出了T1时间等效值。结论软件对基于2D流量的LV评估，T2时间和SV定量结果没有影响。与此相反，Vmax和T1时间可能受软件影响。CMR报告应包含用于图像分析的软件的名称和版本，以避免在后续检查和研究检查中产生误解。试用注册ISRCTN12210850。已于2017年7月14日注册，并追溯注册。CMR报告应包含用于图像分析的软件的名称和版本，以避免在后续检查和研究检查中产生误解。试用注册ISRCTN12210850。已于2017年7月14日注册，并追溯注册。CMR报告应包含用于图像分析的软件的名称和版本，以避免在后续检查和研究检查中产生误解。试用注册ISRCTN12210850。已于2017年7月14日注册，并追溯注册。