PortalPublikationenHead-to-head comparison of cardiovascular MR feature trackin...

Head-to-head comparison of cardiovascular MR feature tracking cine versus acquisition-based deformation strain imaging using myocardial tagging and strain encoding

Standard

Head-to-head comparison of cardiovascular MR feature tracking cine versus acquisition-based deformation strain imaging using myocardial tagging and strain encoding. / Backhaus, Sören J; Metschies, Georg; Zieschang, Victoria; Erley, Jennifer; Mahsa Zamani, Seyedeh; Kowallick, Johannes T; Lapinskas, Tomas; Pieske, Burkert; Lotz, Joachim; Kutty, Shelby; Hasenfuß, Gerd; Kelle, Sebastian; Schuster, Andreas.

in: MAGN RESON MED, Jahrgang 85, Nr. 1, 01.2021, S. 357-368.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung

Harvard

Backhaus, SJ, Metschies, G, Zieschang, V, Erley, J, Mahsa Zamani, S, Kowallick, JT, Lapinskas, T, Pieske, B, Lotz, J, Kutty, S, Hasenfuß, G, Kelle, S & Schuster, A 2021, 'Head-to-head comparison of cardiovascular MR feature tracking cine versus acquisition-based deformation strain imaging using myocardial tagging and strain encoding', MAGN RESON MED, Jg. 85, Nr. 1, S. 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.28437

APA

Backhaus, S. J., Metschies, G., Zieschang, V., Erley, J., Mahsa Zamani, S., Kowallick, J. T., Lapinskas, T., Pieske, B., Lotz, J., Kutty, S., Hasenfuß, G., Kelle, S., & Schuster, A. (2021). Head-to-head comparison of cardiovascular MR feature tracking cine versus acquisition-based deformation strain imaging using myocardial tagging and strain encoding. MAGN RESON MED, 85(1), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.28437

Vancouver

Backhaus SJ, Metschies G, Zieschang V, Erley J, Mahsa Zamani S, Kowallick JT et al. Head-to-head comparison of cardiovascular MR feature tracking cine versus acquisition-based deformation strain imaging using myocardial tagging and strain encoding. MAGN RESON MED. 2021 Jan;85(1):357-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.28437

Bibtex

@article{f15c5b31541f4dfb8181ce40a7b05f07,
title = "Head-to-head comparison of cardiovascular MR feature tracking cine versus acquisition-based deformation strain imaging using myocardial tagging and strain encoding",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Myocardial feature-tracking (FT) deformation imaging is superior for risk stratification compared with volumetric approaches. Because there is no clear recommendation regarding FT postprocessing, we compared different FT-strain analyses with reference standard techniques, including tagging and strain-encoded (SENC) MRI.METHODS: Feature-tracking software from four different vendors (TomTec, Medis, Circle [CVI], and Neosoft), tagging (Segment), and fastSENC (MyoStrain) were used to determine left ventricular global circumferential strains (GCS) and longitudinal strains (GLS) in 12 healthy volunteers and 12 patients with heart failure. Variability and agreements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients for absolute agreement (ICCa) and consistency (ICCc) as well as Pearson correlation coefficients.RESULTS: For FT-GCS, consistency was excellent comparing different FT vendors (ICCc = 0.84-0.97, r = 0.86-0.95) and in comparison to fast SENC (ICCc = 0.78-0.89, r = 0.73-0.81). FT-GCS consistency was excellent compared with tagging (ICCc = 0.79-0.85, r = 0.74-0.77) except for TomTec (ICCc = 0.68, r = 0.72). Absolute FT-GCS agreements among FT vendors were highest for CVI and Medis (ICCa = 0.96) and lowest for TomTec and Neosoft (ICCa = 0.32). Similarly, absolute FT-GCS agreements were excellent for CVI and Medis compared with both tagging and fast SENC (ICCa = 0.84-0.88), good to excellent for Neosoft (ICCa = 0.77 and 0.64), and lowest for TomTec (ICCa = 0.41 and 0.47). For FT-GLS, consistency was excellent (ICCc ≥ 0.86, r ≥ 0.76). Absolute agreements among FT vendors were excellent (ICCa = 0.91-0.93) or good to excellent for TomTec (ICCa = 0.69-0.85). Absolute agreements (ICCa) were good (CVI 0.70, Medis 0.60) and fair (TomTec 0.41, Neosoft 0.59) compared with tagging, but excellent compared with fast SENC (ICCa = 0.77-0.90).CONCLUSION: Although absolute agreements differ depending on deformation assessment approaches, consistency and correlation are consistently high regardless of the method chosen, thus indicating reliable strain assessment. Further standardisation and introduction of uniform references is warranted for routine clinical implementation.",
keywords = "Heart Ventricles/diagnostic imaging, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine, Myocardium, Reproducibility of Results, Ventricular Function, Left",
author = "Backhaus, {S{\"o}ren J} and Georg Metschies and Victoria Zieschang and Jennifer Erley and {Mahsa Zamani}, Seyedeh and Kowallick, {Johannes T} and Tomas Lapinskas and Burkert Pieske and Joachim Lotz and Shelby Kutty and Gerd Hasenfu{\ss} and Sebastian Kelle and Andreas Schuster",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2020 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.",
year = "2021",
month = jan,
doi = "10.1002/mrm.28437",
language = "English",
volume = "85",
pages = "357--368",
journal = "MAGN RESON MED",
issn = "0740-3194",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Head-to-head comparison of cardiovascular MR feature tracking cine versus acquisition-based deformation strain imaging using myocardial tagging and strain encoding

AU - Backhaus, Sören J

AU - Metschies, Georg

AU - Zieschang, Victoria

AU - Erley, Jennifer

AU - Mahsa Zamani, Seyedeh

AU - Kowallick, Johannes T

AU - Lapinskas, Tomas

AU - Pieske, Burkert

AU - Lotz, Joachim

AU - Kutty, Shelby

AU - Hasenfuß, Gerd

AU - Kelle, Sebastian

AU - Schuster, Andreas

N1 - © 2020 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

PY - 2021/1

Y1 - 2021/1

N2 - PURPOSE: Myocardial feature-tracking (FT) deformation imaging is superior for risk stratification compared with volumetric approaches. Because there is no clear recommendation regarding FT postprocessing, we compared different FT-strain analyses with reference standard techniques, including tagging and strain-encoded (SENC) MRI.METHODS: Feature-tracking software from four different vendors (TomTec, Medis, Circle [CVI], and Neosoft), tagging (Segment), and fastSENC (MyoStrain) were used to determine left ventricular global circumferential strains (GCS) and longitudinal strains (GLS) in 12 healthy volunteers and 12 patients with heart failure. Variability and agreements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients for absolute agreement (ICCa) and consistency (ICCc) as well as Pearson correlation coefficients.RESULTS: For FT-GCS, consistency was excellent comparing different FT vendors (ICCc = 0.84-0.97, r = 0.86-0.95) and in comparison to fast SENC (ICCc = 0.78-0.89, r = 0.73-0.81). FT-GCS consistency was excellent compared with tagging (ICCc = 0.79-0.85, r = 0.74-0.77) except for TomTec (ICCc = 0.68, r = 0.72). Absolute FT-GCS agreements among FT vendors were highest for CVI and Medis (ICCa = 0.96) and lowest for TomTec and Neosoft (ICCa = 0.32). Similarly, absolute FT-GCS agreements were excellent for CVI and Medis compared with both tagging and fast SENC (ICCa = 0.84-0.88), good to excellent for Neosoft (ICCa = 0.77 and 0.64), and lowest for TomTec (ICCa = 0.41 and 0.47). For FT-GLS, consistency was excellent (ICCc ≥ 0.86, r ≥ 0.76). Absolute agreements among FT vendors were excellent (ICCa = 0.91-0.93) or good to excellent for TomTec (ICCa = 0.69-0.85). Absolute agreements (ICCa) were good (CVI 0.70, Medis 0.60) and fair (TomTec 0.41, Neosoft 0.59) compared with tagging, but excellent compared with fast SENC (ICCa = 0.77-0.90).CONCLUSION: Although absolute agreements differ depending on deformation assessment approaches, consistency and correlation are consistently high regardless of the method chosen, thus indicating reliable strain assessment. Further standardisation and introduction of uniform references is warranted for routine clinical implementation.

AB - PURPOSE: Myocardial feature-tracking (FT) deformation imaging is superior for risk stratification compared with volumetric approaches. Because there is no clear recommendation regarding FT postprocessing, we compared different FT-strain analyses with reference standard techniques, including tagging and strain-encoded (SENC) MRI.METHODS: Feature-tracking software from four different vendors (TomTec, Medis, Circle [CVI], and Neosoft), tagging (Segment), and fastSENC (MyoStrain) were used to determine left ventricular global circumferential strains (GCS) and longitudinal strains (GLS) in 12 healthy volunteers and 12 patients with heart failure. Variability and agreements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients for absolute agreement (ICCa) and consistency (ICCc) as well as Pearson correlation coefficients.RESULTS: For FT-GCS, consistency was excellent comparing different FT vendors (ICCc = 0.84-0.97, r = 0.86-0.95) and in comparison to fast SENC (ICCc = 0.78-0.89, r = 0.73-0.81). FT-GCS consistency was excellent compared with tagging (ICCc = 0.79-0.85, r = 0.74-0.77) except for TomTec (ICCc = 0.68, r = 0.72). Absolute FT-GCS agreements among FT vendors were highest for CVI and Medis (ICCa = 0.96) and lowest for TomTec and Neosoft (ICCa = 0.32). Similarly, absolute FT-GCS agreements were excellent for CVI and Medis compared with both tagging and fast SENC (ICCa = 0.84-0.88), good to excellent for Neosoft (ICCa = 0.77 and 0.64), and lowest for TomTec (ICCa = 0.41 and 0.47). For FT-GLS, consistency was excellent (ICCc ≥ 0.86, r ≥ 0.76). Absolute agreements among FT vendors were excellent (ICCa = 0.91-0.93) or good to excellent for TomTec (ICCa = 0.69-0.85). Absolute agreements (ICCa) were good (CVI 0.70, Medis 0.60) and fair (TomTec 0.41, Neosoft 0.59) compared with tagging, but excellent compared with fast SENC (ICCa = 0.77-0.90).CONCLUSION: Although absolute agreements differ depending on deformation assessment approaches, consistency and correlation are consistently high regardless of the method chosen, thus indicating reliable strain assessment. Further standardisation and introduction of uniform references is warranted for routine clinical implementation.

KW - Heart Ventricles/diagnostic imaging

KW - Humans

KW - Magnetic Resonance Imaging

KW - Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine

KW - Myocardium

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Ventricular Function, Left

U2 - 10.1002/mrm.28437

DO - 10.1002/mrm.28437

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 32851707

VL - 85

SP - 357

EP - 368

JO - MAGN RESON MED

JF - MAGN RESON MED

SN - 0740-3194

IS - 1

ER -