Cardiac magnetic resonance longitudinal strain analysis in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A comparison with speckle-tracking echocardiography.
Cardiac magnetic resonance
Feature-tracking
Longitudinal strain
Myocardial deformation
Speckle-tracking echocardiography
Journal
International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature
ISSN: 2352-9067
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 101649525
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
23
02
2020
accepted:
01
06
2020
entrez:
23
6
2020
pubmed:
23
6
2020
medline:
23
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Strain analysis with speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) is considered superior to ejection fraction for ventricular function assessment in different clinical scenarios. Feature tracking (FT) permits cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) strain analysis in routinely acquired cine images. This study evaluated the feasibility of CMR-FT and its agreement with STE in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). An echocardiogram and CMR were performed in 128 patients who underwent primary percutaneous revascularisation after a STEMI. Adequate strain analysis was obtained by both techniques in 98 patients and peak systolic longitudinal strain (LS) was assessed with STE and CMR-FT. Of 1568 myocardial segments, 97.2% were correctly tracked with STE and 97.7% with CMR-FT. For global LS, STE showed a mean of -14.8 ± 3.3% and CMR-FT -13.7 ± 3.0%, with good agreement between modalities [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.826; bias -1.09%; limits of agreement (LOA) ± 4.2%]. On the other hand, segmental LS agreement was only moderate, with an ICC of 0.678 (bias -1.14%; LOA ± 11.76%) and the ICC ranged from 0.538 at the basal antero-lateral segment to 0.815 at the apical lateral segment. Finally, both STE and CMR-FT showed excellent intra- and inter-observer reproducibility (ICC > 0.9). CMR-FT provides LS with similar feasibility to STE and both techniques showed good agreement for global LS, although agreement at segmental level was only moderate. CMR-FT showed excellent reproducibility, strengthening its robustness and potential for both research and clinical applications.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Strain analysis with speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) is considered superior to ejection fraction for ventricular function assessment in different clinical scenarios. Feature tracking (FT) permits cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) strain analysis in routinely acquired cine images. This study evaluated the feasibility of CMR-FT and its agreement with STE in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
METHODS
METHODS
An echocardiogram and CMR were performed in 128 patients who underwent primary percutaneous revascularisation after a STEMI. Adequate strain analysis was obtained by both techniques in 98 patients and peak systolic longitudinal strain (LS) was assessed with STE and CMR-FT.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 1568 myocardial segments, 97.2% were correctly tracked with STE and 97.7% with CMR-FT. For global LS, STE showed a mean of -14.8 ± 3.3% and CMR-FT -13.7 ± 3.0%, with good agreement between modalities [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.826; bias -1.09%; limits of agreement (LOA) ± 4.2%]. On the other hand, segmental LS agreement was only moderate, with an ICC of 0.678 (bias -1.14%; LOA ± 11.76%) and the ICC ranged from 0.538 at the basal antero-lateral segment to 0.815 at the apical lateral segment. Finally, both STE and CMR-FT showed excellent intra- and inter-observer reproducibility (ICC > 0.9).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
CMR-FT provides LS with similar feasibility to STE and both techniques showed good agreement for global LS, although agreement at segmental level was only moderate. CMR-FT showed excellent reproducibility, strengthening its robustness and potential for both research and clinical applications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32566723
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.100560
pii: S2352-9067(20)30113-5
pii: 100560
pmc: PMC7298545
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100560Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Eur Heart J. 2010 Jul;31(13):1640-7
pubmed: 20423918
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jul 14;37(27):2129-2200
pubmed: 27206819
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 Jan 18;15:8
pubmed: 23331550
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Jan;11(1):15-24
pubmed: 28528147
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005 Dec;18(12):1440-63
pubmed: 16376782
Eur J Echocardiogr. 2008 Jul;9(4):438-48
pubmed: 18579482
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012 May 31;14:32
pubmed: 22650308
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Aug;10(8):
pubmed: 28733364
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Oct;11(10):1448-1457
pubmed: 29248649
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Oct;28(10):1171-1181, e2
pubmed: 26209911
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Aug;48(2):404-414
pubmed: 29283466
Kardiol Pol. 2014;72(4):363-71
pubmed: 24293146
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Feb;8(2):148-57
pubmed: 25577447
Eur Heart J. 2017 Sep 21;38(36):2739-2791
pubmed: 28886619
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 May 01;15:35
pubmed: 23634753
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016 Aug 26;18(1):51
pubmed: 27561421
Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60
pubmed: 10501650
Circulation. 2012 May 22;125(20):2440-6
pubmed: 22496160
Heart. 2012 Oct;98(19):1442-8
pubmed: 22865865
Eur Heart J. 2012 Oct;33(20):2569-619
pubmed: 22922416
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 May;28(5):587-96
pubmed: 25577185
Eur J Echocardiogr. 2010 Mar;11(2):149-56
pubmed: 19959533
Eur Heart J. 2013 Oct;34(38):2949-3003
pubmed: 23996286
Int J Cardiol. 2014 Dec 20;177(3):935-41
pubmed: 25449504
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Jul;13(7):617-23
pubmed: 22271116
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2007 Sep;26(9):1136-53
pubmed: 17896588
Eur Radiol. 2017 Apr;27(4):1404-1415
pubmed: 27491873
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Dec;17(12):1370-1378
pubmed: 27013249
Am J Cardiol. 2002 Jul 1;90(1):29-34
pubmed: 12088775
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Oct;15(10):1063-93
pubmed: 25239940
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Aug 1;19(8):859-867
pubmed: 28950306
Eur Heart J. 2016 Feb 1;37(5):466-72
pubmed: 26530103
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 May;17(5):525-32
pubmed: 26377901
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014 Jan 22;16:10
pubmed: 24450803
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Feb;29(2):275-84
pubmed: 22736428