BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the capacity and reproducibility of three-dimensional echocardiographic (3DE) strain parameters in the assessment of global left ventricular (LV) systolic function. METHODS: A total of 128 subjects with differing LV ejection fractions were investigated using two-dimensional echocardiographic (2DE) and 3DE strains. Three-dimensional echocardiographic strain allows obtaining longitudinal, circumferential, radial, and area strains. First, values of global longitudinal strain (GLS) by 2DE and 3DE speckle-tracking analyses were compared. Thereafter, 3DE strain parameters were correlated with LV ejection fraction and indexed output. Last, the variability of 3DE versus 2DE strain measurements as well as recorded time of analysis were assessed. RESULTS: After excluding 21 patients for insufficient image quality, four for arrhythmia, two for severe valvular disease, and one for severe dyspnea, the final population consisted of 100 patients. Comparison between 2DE and 3DE GLS revealed high correspondence (r = 0.91, y = 1.04x - 0.71) and mean error measurement of -1.3% (95% confidence interval, -5.7 to 3.2). Among strain parameters, global area strain exhibited the highest correlation with LV ejection fraction (y = -1.65 + 10.4, r = -0.92, P < .001). Intraobserver measurement variability proved acceptable: 8% for GLS (vs 6% on 2DE analysis), 7% for circumferential strain (vs 15% on 2DE analysis), 7% for radial strain (vs 33% on 2DE analysis), and 5% for global area strain. The mean error between two measurements was lower with 3DE than 2DE analysis for circumferential and radial strains but similar for GLS. The mean time of analysis was of 117 ± 16 sec for 3DE analysis, which was 25% less than for 2DE analysis (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Of all strain parameters, new 3DE area strain correlated best with common LV systolic function parameters and is thus the most promising approach, while all 3DE strain markers exhibited good reproducibility.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the capacity and reproducibility of three-dimensional echocardiographic (3DE) strain parameters in the assessment of global left ventricular (LV) systolic function. METHODS: A total of 128 subjects with differing LV ejection fractions were investigated using two-dimensional echocardiographic (2DE) and 3DE strains. Three-dimensional echocardiographic strain allows obtaining longitudinal, circumferential, radial, and area strains. First, values of global longitudinal strain (GLS) by 2DE and 3DE speckle-tracking analyses were compared. Thereafter, 3DE strain parameters were correlated with LV ejection fraction and indexed output. Last, the variability of 3DE versus 2DE strain measurements as well as recorded time of analysis were assessed. RESULTS: After excluding 21 patients for insufficient image quality, four for arrhythmia, two for severe valvular disease, and one for severe dyspnea, the final population consisted of 100 patients. Comparison between 2DE and 3DE GLS revealed high correspondence (r = 0.91, y = 1.04x - 0.71) and mean error measurement of -1.3% (95% confidence interval, -5.7 to 3.2). Among strain parameters, global area strain exhibited the highest correlation with LV ejection fraction (y = -1.65 + 10.4, r = -0.92, P < .001). Intraobserver measurement variability proved acceptable: 8% for GLS (vs 6% on 2DE analysis), 7% for circumferential strain (vs 15% on 2DE analysis), 7% for radial strain (vs 33% on 2DE analysis), and 5% for global area strain. The mean error between two measurements was lower with 3DE than 2DE analysis for circumferential and radial strains but similar for GLS. The mean time of analysis was of 117 ± 16 sec for 3DE analysis, which was 25% less than for 2DE analysis (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Of all strain parameters, new 3DE area strain correlated best with common LV systolic function parameters and is thus the most promising approach, while all 3DE strain markers exhibited good reproducibility.
Authors: David Steflik; Ryan J Butts; George H Baker; Varsha Bandisode; Andrew Savage; Andrew M Atz; Shahryar M Chowdhury Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: S Bouchez; B Heyde; D Barbosa; M Vandenheuvel; H Houle; Y Wang; J D'hooge; P F Wouters Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Chung-Lieh Hung; Alexandra Gonçalves; Amil M Shah; Susan Cheng; Dalane Kitzman; Scott D Solomon Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.792