Skip to main content

Table 1 Correlation and agreement analysis in peak AVPG assessment between invasive cardiac catheterisation and three other methods

From: Validation of aortic valve pressure gradient quantification using semi-automated 4D flow CMR pipeline

  Transthoracic echocardiography 4D flow CMR (manual method) 4D flow CMR (semi-automated pipeline method)
r Bias (mmHg) r Bias (mmHg) r Bias (mmHg)
Invasive cardiac catheterisation 0.95 (p < 0.001) −14.8 (p = 0.001) 0.63 (p = 0.04) −1.8 (p = 0.836) 0.70 (p = 0.02) −0.3 (p = 0.974)
  1. Correlation analysis using the Pearson correlation coefficient (denoted r) and agreement analysis using Bland–Altman statistics (denoted Bias). For agreement analysis, bias refers to the mean difference between the two methods of peak AVPG assessment (measured in mmHg) and is deemed statistically significant if the corresponding p-valve (denoted p) is < 0.05 (i.e., high risk of systematic bias). For negative bias values, this indicates that the non-invasive method (either TTE or 4D flow CMR) for peak AVPG assessment is systematically lower than the values derived from the invasive method