A head-to-head comparison of fast-SENC and feature tracking to LV long axis strain for assessment of myocardial deformation in chest pain patients.
Fast-SENC
Feature tracking
LV long axis strain
Myocardial strain
Journal
BMC medical imaging
ISSN: 1471-2342
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Imaging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 09 2022
05 09 2022
Historique:
received:
08
06
2022
accepted:
19
08
2022
entrez:
5
9
2022
pubmed:
6
9
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Myocardial strain imaging has gained importance in cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in recent years as an even more sensitive marker of early left ventricular dysfunction than left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). fSENC (fast strain encoded imaging) and FT (feature tracking) both allow for reproducible assessment of myocardial strain. However, left-ventricular long axis strain (LVLAS) might enable an equally sensitive measurement of myocardial deformation as global longitudinal or circumferential strain in a more rapid and simple fashion. In this study we compared the diagnostic performance of fSENC, FT and LVLAS for identification of cardiac pathology (ACS, cardiac-non-ACS) in patients presenting with chest pain (initial hscTnT 5-52 ng/l). Patients were prospectively recruited from the chest pain unit in Heidelberg. The CMR scan was performed within 1 h after patient presentation. Analysis of LVLAS was compared to the GLS and GCS as measured by fSENC and FT. In total 40 patients were recruited (ACS n = 6, cardiac-non-ACS n = 6, non-cardiac n = 28). LVLAS was comparable to fSENC for differentiation between healthy myocardium and myocardial dysfunction (GLS-fSENC AUC: 0.882; GCS-fSENC AUC: 0.899; LVLAS AUC: 0.771; GLS-FT AUC: 0.740; GCS-FT: 0.688), while FT-derived strain did not allow for differentiation between ACS and non-cardiac patients. There was significant variability between the three techniques. Intra- and inter-observer variability (OV) was excellent for fSENC and FT, while for LVLAS the agreement was lower and levels of variability higher (intra-OV: Pearson > 0.7, ICC > 0.8; inter-OV: Pearson > 0.65, ICC > 0.8; CoV > 25%). While reproducibility was excellent for both FT and fSENC, it was only fSENC and the LVLAS which allowed for significant identification of myocardial dysfunction, even before LVEF, and therefore might be used as rapid supporting parameters for assessment of left-ventricular function.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Myocardial strain imaging has gained importance in cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in recent years as an even more sensitive marker of early left ventricular dysfunction than left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). fSENC (fast strain encoded imaging) and FT (feature tracking) both allow for reproducible assessment of myocardial strain. However, left-ventricular long axis strain (LVLAS) might enable an equally sensitive measurement of myocardial deformation as global longitudinal or circumferential strain in a more rapid and simple fashion.
METHODS
In this study we compared the diagnostic performance of fSENC, FT and LVLAS for identification of cardiac pathology (ACS, cardiac-non-ACS) in patients presenting with chest pain (initial hscTnT 5-52 ng/l). Patients were prospectively recruited from the chest pain unit in Heidelberg. The CMR scan was performed within 1 h after patient presentation. Analysis of LVLAS was compared to the GLS and GCS as measured by fSENC and FT.
RESULTS
In total 40 patients were recruited (ACS n = 6, cardiac-non-ACS n = 6, non-cardiac n = 28). LVLAS was comparable to fSENC for differentiation between healthy myocardium and myocardial dysfunction (GLS-fSENC AUC: 0.882; GCS-fSENC AUC: 0.899; LVLAS AUC: 0.771; GLS-FT AUC: 0.740; GCS-FT: 0.688), while FT-derived strain did not allow for differentiation between ACS and non-cardiac patients. There was significant variability between the three techniques. Intra- and inter-observer variability (OV) was excellent for fSENC and FT, while for LVLAS the agreement was lower and levels of variability higher (intra-OV: Pearson > 0.7, ICC > 0.8; inter-OV: Pearson > 0.65, ICC > 0.8; CoV > 25%).
CONCLUSIONS
While reproducibility was excellent for both FT and fSENC, it was only fSENC and the LVLAS which allowed for significant identification of myocardial dysfunction, even before LVEF, and therefore might be used as rapid supporting parameters for assessment of left-ventricular function.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36064332
doi: 10.1186/s12880-022-00886-3
pii: 10.1186/s12880-022-00886-3
pmc: PMC9442977
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
159Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Oncol Ther. 2021 Jun;9(1):13-19
pubmed: 33249544
JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Oct 1;4(10):1007-1018
pubmed: 31433450
Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jan 22;2021:8492705
pubmed: 33553431
Eur Radiol. 2020 Jul;30(7):3672-3683
pubmed: 32107604
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2020 Jun 3;20(1):267
pubmed: 32493384
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Jan;29(1):99-105
pubmed: 19097105
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016 Jun 07;18(1):36
pubmed: 27268238
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Nov;10(11):
pubmed: 29138231
Sci Rep. 2018 Sep 20;8(1):14100
pubmed: 30237411
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Aug;31(6):1201-9
pubmed: 26047771
Clin Radiol. 2015 Sep;70(9):989-98
pubmed: 26139384
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Mar;2(2):116-22
pubmed: 19808577
Biomolecules. 2019 Jul 13;9(7):
pubmed: 31337005
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2019 Aug 8;21(1):46
pubmed: 31391036
Diagnosis (Berl). 2016 Dec 1;3(4):143-154
pubmed: 29536904
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Mar;16(3):307-15
pubmed: 25246506
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Feb;11(2 Pt 1):260-274
pubmed: 29413646
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Nov;40(5):1247-51
pubmed: 24214923
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019 Jun 1;20(6):605-619
pubmed: 30903139
Magn Reson Med. 2001 Aug;46(2):324-34
pubmed: 11477637
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Nov 02;8:764496
pubmed: 34796219
Clin Chem. 2010 Feb;56(2):254-61
pubmed: 19959623
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2012 Aug;22(8):613-8
pubmed: 22743209
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jan 14;37(3):267-315
pubmed: 26320110
Radiology. 2017 Jun;283(3):681-691
pubmed: 28156200
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018 Apr 19;20(1):26
pubmed: 29669563
Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 May;68:190-196
pubmed: 32084516
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Apr;89:97-105
pubmed: 28267556
Magn Reson Med. 2021 Jan;85(1):357-368
pubmed: 32851707
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Feb;11(2 Pt 1):196-205
pubmed: 28528164
Radiol Med. 2020 May;125(5):444-450
pubmed: 32125636
PLoS One. 2021 May 3;16(5):e0251040
pubmed: 33939756
J Clin Med. 2020 Nov 29;9(12):
pubmed: 33260461
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015 Aug 08;17:69
pubmed: 26253220
ESC Heart Fail. 2020 Apr;7(2):523-532
pubmed: 31800152
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2007 Mar;292(3):H1452-9
pubmed: 17098822
World J Cardiol. 2018 Nov 26;10(11):210-221
pubmed: 30510638
Radiology. 1982 Apr;143(1):29-36
pubmed: 7063747
Eur Radiol. 2011 Nov;21(11):2362-8
pubmed: 21688005
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Oct;123(4):408-420
pubmed: 31320115
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Mar;34(3):443-456
pubmed: 29043465
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 May;17(5):525-32
pubmed: 26377901
Eur Heart J. 2013 Aug;34(30):2354-61
pubmed: 23644181
Eur Heart J. 2016 Apr 14;37(15):1196-207
pubmed: 26508168
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 May;36(5):899-911
pubmed: 32056087