Extracellular volume-guided late gadolinium enhancement analysis for non-ischemic cardiomyopathy: The Women’s Interagency HIV Study

Table 3 Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of global scar amount (%) between the ECV-guided LGE analysis and the conventional methods in non-ischemic and ischemic cases

Disease	Reproducibility assessment	Analysis method	N	Scar amount (%), mean ± SD	Scar amount (%), median (IQR) (P value)	B-A plot mean ± LoA	CCC (P value)
Non-ischemic	Intra-observer	ECV-guided LGE analysis	40	2.9 ± 3.6 versus 2.7 ± 3.7	1.6 (0.8–3.5) versus 1.6 (0.4–3.7) (P = 0.34)	0.1 ± 2.5	0.94 (P < 0.01)
Non-ischemic	Intra-observer	Manual analysis	40	6.0 ± 3.4 versus 5.4 ± 3.4	5.2 (3.6–7.7) versus 4.6 (3.1–6.7) (P = 0.09)	0.6 ± 4.3	0.78 (P < 0.01)
Non-ischemic	Inter-observer	ECV-guided LGE analysis	40	2.9 ± 3.6 versus 2.3 ± 3.5	1.6 (0.8–3.5) versus 1.3 (0.2–3.3) (P = 0.05)	0.5 ± 3.6	0.86 (P < 0.01)
Non-ischemic	Inter-observer	Manual analysis	40	6.0 ± 3.4 versus 6.6 ± 3.4	5.2 (3.6–7.7) versus 6.3 (4.5–7.6) (P = 0.09)	− 0.6 ± 4.7	0.73 (P < 0.01)
Ischemic	Intra-observer	ECV-guided LGE analysis	10	25.2 ± 8.5 versus 26.6 ± 8.8	25.0 (17.3–33.9) versus 26.9 (17.5–35.2) (P = 0.01)	− 1.4 ± 3.6	0.96 (P < 0.01)
Ischemic	Intra-observer	FWHM	10	25.1 ± 5.9 versus 24.6 ± 5.6	25.0 (21.5–30.5) versus 23.9 (20.3–29.8) (P = 0.77)	0.6 ± 4.8	0.91 (P < 0.01)
Ischemic	Inter-observer	ECV-guided LGE analysis	10	25.2 ± 8.5 versus 28.3 ± 9.5	25.0 (17.3–33.9) versus 29.8 (21.4–37.1) (P < 0.01)	− 3.1 ± 4.3	0.91 (P < 0.01)
Ischemic	Inter-observer	FWHM	10	23.5 ± 5.7 versus 25.1 ± 5.9	24.6 (18.2–27.7) versus 25.0 (21.5–30.5) (P = 0.11)	− 1.7 ± 5.4	0.85 (P < 0.01)

Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of global scar amount (%) was investigated in 40 cases of non-ischemic cases and in 10 cases of ischemic cases. In non-ischemic cases, both inter- and intra-observer reproducibility presented better results in the ECV-guided LGE analysis than the manual analysis. Bland–Altman analysis revealed tighter limits of agreement and smaller bias in ECV-guided LGE analysis, for both inter- and intra-observer assessments. In ischemic cases, all the intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of the global scar (%) were better in ECV-guided LGE analysis than the FWHM analysis, although the FWHM method was already presenting excellent intra-and inter-observer reproducibility. ECV extracellular volume, LGE late gadolinium enhancement, SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range, LoA limits of agreement, CCC concordance correlation coefficient, FWHM full-width half-maximum

ISSN: 1471-2342