Table 2.
Agreement between haemodynamic data obtained with different 4D flow postprocessing software programmes and phase-offset-corrected 2D PC data in 47 patients
| Intraclass correlation | Bland–Altman analysis | Absolute percentage error | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICC | 95% CI | Bias | Range of agreement | Median (%) | 95% CI | |
| Net flow volume | ||||||
| Software A | 0.96* | 0.92–0.98 | − 3.1 ml (− 4.4%) | 24 ml (61%) | 10.2 | 8.9–11.6% |
| Software B | 0.94* | 0.92–0.96 | − 1.7 ml (− 2.2%) | 32 ml (72%) | 11.3 | 10.3–12.8% |
| Software C | 0.96* | 0.94–0.97 | − 1.2 ml (− 0.8%) | 28 ml (70%) | 8.9 | 7.7–10.6% |
| Software D | 0.97* | 0.95–0.98 | − 2.1 ml (− 3.1%) | 23 ml (63%) | 10.3 | 8.6–11.5% |
| Pulmonary-to-systemic flow ratio (Qp / Qs) | ||||||
| Software A | 0.89* | 0.82–0.94 | 0.02 (2.6%) | 0.48 (44%) | 8.3 | 7.4–10.3% |
| Software B | 0.88* | 0.74–0.94 | 0.08 (6.7%) | 0.47 (45%) | 8.3 | 4.9–11.3% |
| Software C | 0.85* | 0.68–0.93 | 0.07 (7.8%) | 0.57 (57%) | 9.6 | 6.8–12.1% |
| Software D | 0.91* | 0.83–0.95 | 0.04 (4.6%) | 0.44 (46%) | 6.5 | 4.2–8.9% |
| Differential blood flow (RPA flow percentage) | ||||||
| Software A | 0.33 | 0.06–0.56 | − 1.0% | 27% | 7.0 | 5.1–8.9% |
| Software B | 0.35 | 0.08–0.58 | 1.4% | 29% | 7.8 | 4.7–10.8% |
| Software C | 0.39 | 0.12–0.60 | − 1.6% | 29% | 6.5 | 4.0–11.4% |
| Software D | 0.47 | 0.22–0.67 | 1.5% | 25% | 6.0 | 4.1–11.7% |
ICC Intraclass correlation coefficient, CI Confidence interval, SD Standard deviation
*Significantly higher ICC than for 4D flow without phase-offset correction. Software A: Arterys; software B: Circle; software C: Caas; software D: Medis