BACKGROUND: To determine the normal range of left ventricular (LV) 2- dimensional (2-D) strain and vendor-specific differences, a multicenter prospective 2-D strain study endorsed by the Japanese Society of Echocardiography was conducted. METHODS AND RESULTS: 2-D speckle tracking analysis was performed on 817 healthy subjects (age range, 0-88 years); the images included 3 LV short axis and 3 apical views using an ultrasound system from 1 of the 3 different vendors (V(1), n=333; V(2), n=330; V(3), n=337). With the 2-D speckle tracking software from each vendor, radial, circumferential and longitudinal strain were measured using an 18-segment model. Inter-vendor variability was also assessed in a subset of subjects. The feasibility for 2-D strain measurements was different among the 3 vendors (V(1), 83%; V(2), 70%; V(3), 88%, P<0.01). The global radial (V(1), 54.6±12.6%; V(2), 36.3±8.2%; V(3), 51.4±8.0%), circumferential (V(1), -22.8±2.9%; V(2), -22.2±3.2%; V(3), -30.5±3.8%), and longitudinal (V(1), -21.3±2.1%; V(2), -18.9±2.5%; V(3), -19.9±2.4%) strain measurements were significantly different for each of the vendors. Segmental strain was also different between the 3 vendors. On inter-vendor analysis, vendor agreement ranged from mild to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Reference values are provided for normal 2-D strain for 3 different ultrasound vendors. Due to a low inter-vendor agreement, 2-D strain data are not interchangeable when conducting a longitudinal follow-up or a cross-sectional assessment of LV function.
BACKGROUND: To determine the normal range of left ventricular (LV) 2- dimensional (2-D) strain and vendor-specific differences, a multicenter prospective 2-D strain study endorsed by the Japanese Society of Echocardiography was conducted. METHODS AND RESULTS: 2-D speckle tracking analysis was performed on 817 healthy subjects (age range, 0-88 years); the images included 3 LV short axis and 3 apical views using an ultrasound system from 1 of the 3 different vendors (V(1), n=333; V(2), n=330; V(3), n=337). With the 2-D speckle tracking software from each vendor, radial, circumferential and longitudinal strain were measured using an 18-segment model. Inter-vendor variability was also assessed in a subset of subjects. The feasibility for 2-D strain measurements was different among the 3 vendors (V(1), 83%; V(2), 70%; V(3), 88%, P<0.01). The global radial (V(1), 54.6±12.6%; V(2), 36.3±8.2%; V(3), 51.4±8.0%), circumferential (V(1), -22.8±2.9%; V(2), -22.2±3.2%; V(3), -30.5±3.8%), and longitudinal (V(1), -21.3±2.1%; V(2), -18.9±2.5%; V(3), -19.9±2.4%) strain measurements were significantly different for each of the vendors. Segmental strain was also different between the 3 vendors. On inter-vendor analysis, vendor agreement ranged from mild to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Reference values are provided for normal 2-D strain for 3 different ultrasound vendors. Due to a low inter-vendor agreement, 2-D strain data are not interchangeable when conducting a longitudinal follow-up or a cross-sectional assessment of LV function.
Authors: Philip T Levy; Aliza Machefsky; Aura A Sanchez; Meghna D Patel; Sarah Rogal; Susan Fowler; Lauren Yaeger; Angela Hardi; Mark R Holland; Aaron Hamvas; Gautam K Singh Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Johannes H Riffel; Marius G P Keller; Matthias Aurich; Yannick Sander; Florian Andre; Sorin Giusca; Fabian Aus dem Siepen; Sebastian Seitz; Christian Galuschky; Grigorios Korosoglou; Derliz Mereles; Hugo A Katus; Sebastian J Buss Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Gregory T Armstrong; Vijaya M Joshi; Kirsten K Ness; Thomas H Marwick; Nan Zhang; DeoKumar Srivastava; Brian P Griffin; Richard A Grimm; James Thomas; Dermot Phelan; Patrick Collier; Kevin R Krull; Daniel A Mulrooney; Daniel M Green; Melissa M Hudson; Leslie L Robison; Juan Carlos Plana Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 24.094