Myocardial strain analysis of the right ventricle: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance and echocardiographic techniques
Standard
Myocardial strain analysis of the right ventricle: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance and echocardiographic techniques. / Erley, Jennifer; Tanacli, Radu; Genovese, Davide; Tapaskar, Natalie; Rashedi, Nina; Bucius, Paulius; Kawaji, Keigo; Karagodin, Ilya; Lang, Roberto M; Kelle, Sebastian; Mor-Avi, Victor; Patel, Amit R.
in: J CARDIOVASC MAGN R, Jahrgang 22, Nr. 1, 51, 23.07.2020.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Myocardial strain analysis of the right ventricle: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance and echocardiographic techniques
AU - Erley, Jennifer
AU - Tanacli, Radu
AU - Genovese, Davide
AU - Tapaskar, Natalie
AU - Rashedi, Nina
AU - Bucius, Paulius
AU - Kawaji, Keigo
AU - Karagodin, Ilya
AU - Lang, Roberto M
AU - Kelle, Sebastian
AU - Mor-Avi, Victor
AU - Patel, Amit R
PY - 2020/7/23
Y1 - 2020/7/23
N2 - BACKGROUND: Right ventricular (RV) strain is a useful predictor of prognosis in various cardiovascular diseases, including those traditionally believed to impact only the left ventricle. We aimed to determine inter-modality and inter-technique agreement in RV longitudinal strain (LS) measurements between currently available cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and echocardiographic techniques, as well as their reproducibility and the impact of layer-specific strain measurements.METHODS: RV-LS was determined in 62 patients using 2D speckle tracking echocardiography (STE, Epsilon) and two CMR techniques: feature tracking (FT) and strain-encoding (SENC), and in 17 healthy subjects using FT and SENC only. Measurements included global and free-wall LS (GLS, FWLS). Inter-technique agreement was assessed using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Reproducibility was quantified using intraclass correlation (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CoV).RESULTS: We found similar moderate agreement between both CMR techniques and STE in patients: r = 0.57-0.63 for SENC; r = 0.50-0.62 for FT. The correlation between SENC and STE was better for GLS (r = 0.63) than for FWLS (r = 0.57). Conversely, the correlation between FT and STE was higher for FWLS (r = 0.60-0.62) than GLS (r = 0.50-0.54). FT-midmyocardial strain correlated better with SENC and STE than FT-subendocardial strain. The agreement between SENC and FT was fair (r = 0.36-0.41, bias: - 6.4 to - 10.4%) in the entire study group. All techniques except FT showed excellent reproducibility (ICC: 0.62-0.96, CoV: 0.04-0.30).CONCLUSIONS: We found only moderate inter-modality agreement with STE in RV-LS for both FT and SENC and poor agreement when comparing between the CMR techniques. Different modalities and techniques should not be used interchangeably to determine and monitor RV strain.
AB - BACKGROUND: Right ventricular (RV) strain is a useful predictor of prognosis in various cardiovascular diseases, including those traditionally believed to impact only the left ventricle. We aimed to determine inter-modality and inter-technique agreement in RV longitudinal strain (LS) measurements between currently available cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and echocardiographic techniques, as well as their reproducibility and the impact of layer-specific strain measurements.METHODS: RV-LS was determined in 62 patients using 2D speckle tracking echocardiography (STE, Epsilon) and two CMR techniques: feature tracking (FT) and strain-encoding (SENC), and in 17 healthy subjects using FT and SENC only. Measurements included global and free-wall LS (GLS, FWLS). Inter-technique agreement was assessed using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Reproducibility was quantified using intraclass correlation (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CoV).RESULTS: We found similar moderate agreement between both CMR techniques and STE in patients: r = 0.57-0.63 for SENC; r = 0.50-0.62 for FT. The correlation between SENC and STE was better for GLS (r = 0.63) than for FWLS (r = 0.57). Conversely, the correlation between FT and STE was higher for FWLS (r = 0.60-0.62) than GLS (r = 0.50-0.54). FT-midmyocardial strain correlated better with SENC and STE than FT-subendocardial strain. The agreement between SENC and FT was fair (r = 0.36-0.41, bias: - 6.4 to - 10.4%) in the entire study group. All techniques except FT showed excellent reproducibility (ICC: 0.62-0.96, CoV: 0.04-0.30).CONCLUSIONS: We found only moderate inter-modality agreement with STE in RV-LS for both FT and SENC and poor agreement when comparing between the CMR techniques. Different modalities and techniques should not be used interchangeably to determine and monitor RV strain.
KW - Adult
KW - Echocardiography/methods
KW - Female
KW - Heart Ventricles/diagnostic imaging
KW - Humans
KW - Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Predictive Value of Tests
KW - Reproducibility of Results
KW - Ventricular Dysfunction, Right/diagnostic imaging
KW - Young Adult
U2 - 10.1186/s12968-020-00647-7
DO - 10.1186/s12968-020-00647-7
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 32698811
VL - 22
JO - J CARDIOVASC MAGN R
JF - J CARDIOVASC MAGN R
SN - 1097-6647
IS - 1
M1 - 51
ER -