Echocardiography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance based evaluation of myocardial strain and relationship with late gadolinium enhancement.
Adult
Echocardiography
Female
Heart Ventricles
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine
Male
Middle Aged
Multimodal Imaging
Myocardial Contraction
Myocardial Ischemia
/ diagnostic imaging
Observer Variation
Predictive Value of Tests
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Stroke Volume
Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
/ diagnostic imaging
Ventricular Function, Left
Cardiac imaging
Left ventricular function
Myocardial deformation
Myocardial scar
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
ISSN: 1532-429X
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815616
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 08 2019
08 08 2019
Historique:
received:
04
01
2019
accepted:
01
07
2019
entrez:
9
8
2019
pubmed:
9
8
2019
medline:
6
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We sought to: (1) determine the agreement in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) derived strain measurements, (2) compare their reproducibility, (3) determine which approach is best related to CMR late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). While STE-derived strain is routinely used to assess left ventricular (LV) function, CMR strain measurements are not yet standardized. Strain can be measured using dedicated pulse sequences (strain-encoding, SENC), or post-processing of cine images (feature tracking, FT). It is unclear whether these measurements are interchangeable, and whether strain can be used as an alternative to LGE. Fifty patients underwent 2D echocardiography and 1.5 T CMR. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) was measured by STE (Epsilon), FT (NeoSoft) and SENC (Myocardial Solutions) and circumferential strain (GCS) by FT and SENC. GLS showed good inter-modality agreement (r-values: 0.71-0.75), small biases (< 1%) but considerable limits of agreement (- 7 to 8%). The agreement between the CMR techniques was better for GLS than GCS (r = 0.81 vs 0.67; smaller bias). Repeated measurements showed low intra- and inter-observer variability for both GLS and GCS (intraclass correlations 0.86-0.99; coefficients of variation 3-13%). LGE was present in 22 (44%) of patients. Both SENC- and FT-derived GLS and GCS were associated with LGE, while STE-GLS was not. Irrespective of CMR technique, this association was stronger for GCS (AUC 0.77-0.78) than GLS (AUC 0.67-0.72) and STE-GLS (AUC = 0.58). There is good inter-technique agreement in strain measurements, which were highly reproducible, irrespective of modality or analysis technique. GCS may better reflect the presence of underlying LGE than GLS.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVES
We sought to: (1) determine the agreement in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) derived strain measurements, (2) compare their reproducibility, (3) determine which approach is best related to CMR late gadolinium enhancement (LGE).
BACKGROUND
While STE-derived strain is routinely used to assess left ventricular (LV) function, CMR strain measurements are not yet standardized. Strain can be measured using dedicated pulse sequences (strain-encoding, SENC), or post-processing of cine images (feature tracking, FT). It is unclear whether these measurements are interchangeable, and whether strain can be used as an alternative to LGE.
METHODS
Fifty patients underwent 2D echocardiography and 1.5 T CMR. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) was measured by STE (Epsilon), FT (NeoSoft) and SENC (Myocardial Solutions) and circumferential strain (GCS) by FT and SENC.
RESULTS
GLS showed good inter-modality agreement (r-values: 0.71-0.75), small biases (< 1%) but considerable limits of agreement (- 7 to 8%). The agreement between the CMR techniques was better for GLS than GCS (r = 0.81 vs 0.67; smaller bias). Repeated measurements showed low intra- and inter-observer variability for both GLS and GCS (intraclass correlations 0.86-0.99; coefficients of variation 3-13%). LGE was present in 22 (44%) of patients. Both SENC- and FT-derived GLS and GCS were associated with LGE, while STE-GLS was not. Irrespective of CMR technique, this association was stronger for GCS (AUC 0.77-0.78) than GLS (AUC 0.67-0.72) and STE-GLS (AUC = 0.58).
CONCLUSION
There is good inter-technique agreement in strain measurements, which were highly reproducible, irrespective of modality or analysis technique. GCS may better reflect the presence of underlying LGE than GLS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31391036
doi: 10.1186/s12968-019-0559-y
pii: 10.1186/s12968-019-0559-y
pmc: PMC6686365
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
46Références
Eur J Radiol. 2015 May;84(5):840-8
pubmed: 25743248
Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Jul;28(6):812-9
pubmed: 20409668
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018 Apr 19;20(1):26
pubmed: 29669563
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 May;28(5):587-96
pubmed: 25577185
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Jun;14(6):570-8
pubmed: 23148082
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Jan;16(1):1-11
pubmed: 25525063
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012 Nov;25(11):1179-88
pubmed: 22951120
Heart. 2014 Nov;100(21):1673-80
pubmed: 24860005
Circ Heart Fail. 2011 Jul;4(4):433-40
pubmed: 21602574
Jpn J Radiol. 2018 Feb;36(2):103-112
pubmed: 29119456
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2008 Jul 04;10:33
pubmed: 18601713
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Mar;2(2):132-40
pubmed: 19808579
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Nov;11(11):1569-1579
pubmed: 29153577
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018 Sep 13;20(1):63
pubmed: 30208894
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Mar;2(2):116-22
pubmed: 19808577
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Mar;14(3):285-93
pubmed: 22968525
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Mar;16(3):307-15
pubmed: 25246506
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012 Nov;25(11):1195-203
pubmed: 22981228
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Oct;11(10):1419-1429
pubmed: 29361479
Clin Res Cardiol. 2016 Oct;105(10):815-26
pubmed: 27108156
Eur J Echocardiogr. 2011 Jul;12(7):490-6
pubmed: 21636605
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 Jan 18;15:8
pubmed: 23331550
Am J Cardiol. 2017 May 15;119(10):1542-1547
pubmed: 28335982
Magn Reson Med. 2001 Aug;46(2):324-34
pubmed: 11477637
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014 Oct 01;16:72
pubmed: 25316531
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 Mar;27(3):249-57
pubmed: 24368027
Intern Med. 2016;55(3):237-43
pubmed: 26831016
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Jan;29(1):141-50
pubmed: 22581073
Eur Radiol. 2011 Nov;21(11):2362-8
pubmed: 21688005
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011 Aug;24(8):878-85
pubmed: 21645991
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009 Nov;22(11):1232-8
pubmed: 19815383
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 Sep;27(9):911-39
pubmed: 25172399
Echocardiography. 2016 Sep;33(9):1344-52
pubmed: 27677642
Eur Radiol. 2017 Apr;27(4):1404-1415
pubmed: 27491873
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011 Nov;24(11):1253-9
pubmed: 21908174
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Dec;17(12):1370-1378
pubmed: 27013249
Sci Rep. 2018 Sep 20;8(1):14100
pubmed: 30237411
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Aug;48(2):404-414
pubmed: 29283466
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 May;17(5):525-32
pubmed: 26377901
Pediatr Cardiol. 2018 Mar;39(3):478-483
pubmed: 29188318
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Aug;31(6):1201-9
pubmed: 26047771
Pediatr Cardiol. 2016 Apr;37(4):696-703
pubmed: 26717912
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018 Aug 16;20(1):57
pubmed: 30111368