The Need for Standardized Methods for Measuring the Aorta Multimodality Core Lab Experience from the GenTAC Registry

GenTAC Investigators

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives This study sought to evaluate variability in aortic measurements with multiple imaging modalities in clinical centers by comparing with a standardized measuring protocol implemented in a core laboratory. Background In patients with aortic disease, imaging of thoracic aorta plays a major role in risk stratifying individuals for life-threatening complications and in determining timing of surgical intervention. However, standardization of the procedures for performance of aortic measurements is lacking. Methods To characterize the diversity of methods used in clinical practice, we compared aortic measurements performed by echocardiography, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the 6 GenTAC (National Registry of Genetically Triggered Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Cardiovascular Conditions) clinical centers to those performed at the imaging core laboratory in 965 studies. Each center acquired and analyzed their images according to local protocols. The same images were subsequently analyzed blindly by the core laboratory, on the basis of a standardized protocol for all imaging modalities. Paired measurements from clinical centers and core laboratory were compared by mean of differences and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results For all segments of the ascending aorta, echocardiography showed a higher ICC (0.84 to 0.93) than CT (0.84) and MRI (0.82 to 0.90), with smaller mean of differences. MRI showed higher ICC for the arch and descending aorta (0.91 and 0.93). In a mixed adjusted model, the different imaging modalities and clinical centers were identified as sources of variability between clinical and core laboratory measurements, whereas age groups or diagnosis at enrollment were not. Conclusions By comparing core laboratory with measurements from clinical centers, our study identified important sources of variability in aortic measurements. Furthermore, our findings with regard to CT and MRI suggest a need for imaging societies to work toward the development of unifying acquisition protocols and common measuring methods.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)219-226
Number of pages8
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
Volume9
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016

Fingerprint

Registries
Aorta
Thoracic Aorta
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Tomography
Echocardiography
Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm
Aortic Diseases
Age Groups

Keywords

  • core laboratory
  • CT
  • echocardiography
  • Key Words aortic measurements
  • MRI
  • standardization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

The Need for Standardized Methods for Measuring the Aorta Multimodality Core Lab Experience from the GenTAC Registry. / GenTAC Investigators.

In: JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, Vol. 9, No. 3, 01.03.2016, p. 219-226.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{406d56a94eb54866b2d6a8fa2ed5f1a3,
title = "The Need for Standardized Methods for Measuring the Aorta Multimodality Core Lab Experience from the GenTAC Registry",
abstract = "Objectives This study sought to evaluate variability in aortic measurements with multiple imaging modalities in clinical centers by comparing with a standardized measuring protocol implemented in a core laboratory. Background In patients with aortic disease, imaging of thoracic aorta plays a major role in risk stratifying individuals for life-threatening complications and in determining timing of surgical intervention. However, standardization of the procedures for performance of aortic measurements is lacking. Methods To characterize the diversity of methods used in clinical practice, we compared aortic measurements performed by echocardiography, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the 6 GenTAC (National Registry of Genetically Triggered Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Cardiovascular Conditions) clinical centers to those performed at the imaging core laboratory in 965 studies. Each center acquired and analyzed their images according to local protocols. The same images were subsequently analyzed blindly by the core laboratory, on the basis of a standardized protocol for all imaging modalities. Paired measurements from clinical centers and core laboratory were compared by mean of differences and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results For all segments of the ascending aorta, echocardiography showed a higher ICC (0.84 to 0.93) than CT (0.84) and MRI (0.82 to 0.90), with smaller mean of differences. MRI showed higher ICC for the arch and descending aorta (0.91 and 0.93). In a mixed adjusted model, the different imaging modalities and clinical centers were identified as sources of variability between clinical and core laboratory measurements, whereas age groups or diagnosis at enrollment were not. Conclusions By comparing core laboratory with measurements from clinical centers, our study identified important sources of variability in aortic measurements. Furthermore, our findings with regard to CT and MRI suggest a need for imaging societies to work toward the development of unifying acquisition protocols and common measuring methods.",
keywords = "core laboratory, CT, echocardiography, Key Words aortic measurements, MRI, standardization",
author = "{GenTAC Investigators} and Asch, {Federico M.} and Eugene Yuriditsky and Prakash, {Siddharth K.} and Roman, {Mary J.} and Weinsaft, {Jonathan W.} and Gaby Weissman and Weigold, {Wm Guy} and Morris, {Shaine A.} and Ravekes, {William J.} and Kathryn Holmes and Silberbach, {Gary (Michael)} and Milewski, {Rita K.} and Kroner, {Barbara L.} and Ryan Whitworth and Eagle, {Kim A.} and Devereux, {Richard B.} and Weissman, {Neil J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.06.023",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "219--226",
journal = "JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging",
issn = "1936-878X",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Need for Standardized Methods for Measuring the Aorta Multimodality Core Lab Experience from the GenTAC Registry

AU - GenTAC Investigators

AU - Asch, Federico M.

AU - Yuriditsky, Eugene

AU - Prakash, Siddharth K.

AU - Roman, Mary J.

AU - Weinsaft, Jonathan W.

AU - Weissman, Gaby

AU - Weigold, Wm Guy

AU - Morris, Shaine A.

AU - Ravekes, William J.

AU - Holmes, Kathryn

AU - Silberbach, Gary (Michael)

AU - Milewski, Rita K.

AU - Kroner, Barbara L.

AU - Whitworth, Ryan

AU - Eagle, Kim A.

AU - Devereux, Richard B.

AU - Weissman, Neil J.

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Objectives This study sought to evaluate variability in aortic measurements with multiple imaging modalities in clinical centers by comparing with a standardized measuring protocol implemented in a core laboratory. Background In patients with aortic disease, imaging of thoracic aorta plays a major role in risk stratifying individuals for life-threatening complications and in determining timing of surgical intervention. However, standardization of the procedures for performance of aortic measurements is lacking. Methods To characterize the diversity of methods used in clinical practice, we compared aortic measurements performed by echocardiography, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the 6 GenTAC (National Registry of Genetically Triggered Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Cardiovascular Conditions) clinical centers to those performed at the imaging core laboratory in 965 studies. Each center acquired and analyzed their images according to local protocols. The same images were subsequently analyzed blindly by the core laboratory, on the basis of a standardized protocol for all imaging modalities. Paired measurements from clinical centers and core laboratory were compared by mean of differences and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results For all segments of the ascending aorta, echocardiography showed a higher ICC (0.84 to 0.93) than CT (0.84) and MRI (0.82 to 0.90), with smaller mean of differences. MRI showed higher ICC for the arch and descending aorta (0.91 and 0.93). In a mixed adjusted model, the different imaging modalities and clinical centers were identified as sources of variability between clinical and core laboratory measurements, whereas age groups or diagnosis at enrollment were not. Conclusions By comparing core laboratory with measurements from clinical centers, our study identified important sources of variability in aortic measurements. Furthermore, our findings with regard to CT and MRI suggest a need for imaging societies to work toward the development of unifying acquisition protocols and common measuring methods.

AB - Objectives This study sought to evaluate variability in aortic measurements with multiple imaging modalities in clinical centers by comparing with a standardized measuring protocol implemented in a core laboratory. Background In patients with aortic disease, imaging of thoracic aorta plays a major role in risk stratifying individuals for life-threatening complications and in determining timing of surgical intervention. However, standardization of the procedures for performance of aortic measurements is lacking. Methods To characterize the diversity of methods used in clinical practice, we compared aortic measurements performed by echocardiography, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the 6 GenTAC (National Registry of Genetically Triggered Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Cardiovascular Conditions) clinical centers to those performed at the imaging core laboratory in 965 studies. Each center acquired and analyzed their images according to local protocols. The same images were subsequently analyzed blindly by the core laboratory, on the basis of a standardized protocol for all imaging modalities. Paired measurements from clinical centers and core laboratory were compared by mean of differences and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results For all segments of the ascending aorta, echocardiography showed a higher ICC (0.84 to 0.93) than CT (0.84) and MRI (0.82 to 0.90), with smaller mean of differences. MRI showed higher ICC for the arch and descending aorta (0.91 and 0.93). In a mixed adjusted model, the different imaging modalities and clinical centers were identified as sources of variability between clinical and core laboratory measurements, whereas age groups or diagnosis at enrollment were not. Conclusions By comparing core laboratory with measurements from clinical centers, our study identified important sources of variability in aortic measurements. Furthermore, our findings with regard to CT and MRI suggest a need for imaging societies to work toward the development of unifying acquisition protocols and common measuring methods.

KW - core laboratory

KW - CT

KW - echocardiography

KW - Key Words aortic measurements

KW - MRI

KW - standardization

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960107144&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960107144&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.06.023

DO - 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.06.023

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 219

EP - 226

JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging

JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging

SN - 1936-878X

IS - 3

ER -