Novel mesh-derived right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain analysis by intraoperative three-dimensional transoesophageal speckle-tracking echocardiography: a comparison with conventional parameters.
Adult
Aged
Echocardiography, Three-Dimensional
Echocardiography, Transesophageal
Feasibility Studies
Female
Humans
Intraoperative Period
Male
Middle Aged
Myocardial Contraction
Observer Variation
Predictive Value of Tests
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Ventricular Dysfunction, Right
/ diagnostic imaging
Ventricular Function, Right
Free wall strain
Right ventricle
Speckle-tracking
Three-dimensional
Transesopheageal echocardiography
Journal
The international journal of cardiovascular imaging
ISSN: 1875-8312
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100969716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2019
Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
18
03
2019
accepted:
12
07
2019
pubmed:
20
7
2019
medline:
22
1
2020
entrez:
20
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Longitudinal right ventricular (RV) function is substantial and might be reflected by free wall longitudinal strain (FWLS). Software solutions for FWLS analysis by two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) are available, but data on validation are sparse. In this study, a novel method for FWLS analysis on 3D meshes ("mesh surface", MS-FWLS,) was tested for feasibility and compared to available parameters. 80 patients undergoing left-sided cardiac valve surgery with intraoperative TEE were included retrospectively. 2D-FWLS, 3D-derived (3Dd)-FWLS (assessed in optimized four-chamber views after volume analysis) and MS-FWLS were measured and compared to conventional parameters (3Dd-TAPSE, FAC and RVEF). The mean FWLS values did not differ significantly between methods (- 19.0 ± 6.1%, - 20.0 ± 7.3%, - 19.5 ± 7.3% for 2D-, 3Dd- and MS-FWLS, respectively). No significant differences in the mean FWLS between patients with normal or increased pulmonary artery pressures as well as normal or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were observed. Agreement was best between 3Dd- and MS-FWLS (r = 0.89, bias = - 1.0%, LOA ± 6.9%). Conventional echocardiographic parameters yielded poorer intermodality agreement. In patients with discrepant results between 2D- and 3Dd-FWLS, 3Dd-FWLS and MS-FWLS yielded similar results (r = 0.82, bias = - 0.3%, LOA ± 8.6%), while 2D-FWLS and MS-FWLS did not. Intra- and interobserver variabilities of strain analyses were low. MS-FWLS might represent a promising method to overcome artefacts associated with 2D analysis. Its prognostic relevance needs to be investigated in prospective studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31321655
doi: 10.1007/s10554-019-01669-8
pii: 10.1007/s10554-019-01669-8
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2177-2188Références
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2017 Apr;31(2):595-601
pubmed: 28129939
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jul 8;64(1):41-51
pubmed: 24998127
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012 Jan;25(1):3-46
pubmed: 22183020
Cardiol J. 2016;23(2):189-94
pubmed: 26711464
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Jul;34(7):1017-1028
pubmed: 29383465
Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2017 Mar 27;15(1):8
pubmed: 28347344
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017 Oct;30(10):937-946.e6
pubmed: 28803684
Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7
pubmed: 18064739
Clin Med Insights Cardiol. 2015 Jul 05;9:65-75
pubmed: 26244034
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2016 Jan;30(1):122-6
pubmed: 26520027
Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 Mar;85(3):845-52
pubmed: 18291154
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013 Sep;26(9):921-64
pubmed: 23998692
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013 Nov;26(11):1274-1281.e4
pubmed: 23953702
Eur Heart J. 2006 Feb;27(4):460-8
pubmed: 16319085
Clin Res Cardiol. 2014 Oct;103(10):817-24
pubmed: 24830514
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2019 Jun;33(6):1527-1532
pubmed: 30867108
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013 Jul;26(7):721-6
pubmed: 23623594
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017 Dec;30(12):1203-1213
pubmed: 29079046
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012 Sep;25(9):978-85
pubmed: 22766029
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Dec 1;272:348-355
pubmed: 29903518
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):1-39.e14
pubmed: 25559473
Echocardiography. 2015 Jun;32(6):966-74
pubmed: 25287078
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010 Apr;23(4):351-69; quiz 453-5
pubmed: 20362924
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Jan;16(1):47-52
pubmed: 25187607
Echocardiography. 2012 Mar;29(3):334-9
pubmed: 22150476