BACKGROUND: Quantitative analysis of segmental myocardial deformation of different myocardial layers has become possible using strain-encoded cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (SENC) and speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE). We evaluated and compared the quantitative analysis of myocardial deformation using SENC and STE. METHODS: In 44 patients (age 61 ± 13 years, 34 men), SENC by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging using a 1.5-Tesla whole-body scanner and two-dimensional STE were performed prospectively. Quantitative layer-specific analysis of segmental left ventricular function was performed to determine the peak circumferential and peak longitudinal systolic strain values using SENC and STE of an endocardial and epicardial myocardial layer. In addition, segmental function was defined as normokinetic, hypokinetic, or akinetic by visual analysis of the magnetic resonance imaging cine sequences. RESULTS: The endocardial and epicardial strain defined by SENC or STE differed significantly between the visually defined segmental function states. The correlation of the peak circumferential endocardial strain by SENC versus STE (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.493, 95% CI 0.358-0.597) tended to be better than the correlation of the circumferential epicardial strain using both methods (ICC 0.321, 95% CI 0.238-0.399). The correlation of the peak longitudinal endocardial strain by SENC and STE was similar (ICC 0.472, 95% CI 0.398-0.541), in contrast to the longitudinal epicardial strain analysis by both techniques (ICC 0.554, 95% CI 0.417-0.655). Circumferential strain analysis by STE allowed better distinction of the hypokinetic or akinetic segments from the normokinetic segments than did the circumferential strain analysis by SENC of the endocardial layer (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC ROC] 0.946 vs 0.884; P < .001) or epicardial layer (AUC ROC 0.884 vs 0.782; P < .001). Longitudinal strain analysis using STE and SENC of the endocardial layer (AUC ROC 0.851 vs 0.839; P = .5838) and epicardial layer (AUC ROC 0.849 vs 0.833; P = .4321) had similar diagnostic value for identifying the presence of hypokinetic and akinetic segments. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative analysis of segmental deformation by SENC and STE allowed accurate distinction of myocardial segments with different functional states. Circumferential endocardial strain analysis by STE allowed the best distinction of segments with impaired function from the normokinetic segments.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative analysis of segmental myocardial deformation of different myocardial layers has become possible using strain-encoded cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (SENC) and speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE). We evaluated and compared the quantitative analysis of myocardial deformation using SENC and STE. METHODS: In 44 patients (age 61 ± 13 years, 34 men), SENC by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging using a 1.5-Tesla whole-body scanner and two-dimensional STE were performed prospectively. Quantitative layer-specific analysis of segmental left ventricular function was performed to determine the peak circumferential and peak longitudinal systolic strain values using SENC and STE of an endocardial and epicardial myocardial layer. In addition, segmental function was defined as normokinetic, hypokinetic, or akinetic by visual analysis of the magnetic resonance imaging cine sequences. RESULTS: The endocardial and epicardial strain defined by SENC or STE differed significantly between the visually defined segmental function states. The correlation of the peak circumferential endocardial strain by SENC versus STE (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.493, 95% CI 0.358-0.597) tended to be better than the correlation of the circumferential epicardial strain using both methods (ICC 0.321, 95% CI 0.238-0.399). The correlation of the peak longitudinal endocardial strain by SENC and STE was similar (ICC 0.472, 95% CI 0.398-0.541), in contrast to the longitudinal epicardial strain analysis by both techniques (ICC 0.554, 95% CI 0.417-0.655). Circumferential strain analysis by STE allowed better distinction of the hypokinetic or akinetic segments from the normokinetic segments than did the circumferential strain analysis by SENC of the endocardial layer (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC ROC] 0.946 vs 0.884; P < .001) or epicardial layer (AUC ROC 0.884 vs 0.782; P < .001). Longitudinal strain analysis using STE and SENC of the endocardial layer (AUC ROC 0.851 vs 0.839; P = .5838) and epicardial layer (AUC ROC 0.849 vs 0.833; P = .4321) had similar diagnostic value for identifying the presence of hypokinetic and akinetic segments. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative analysis of segmental deformation by SENC and STE allowed accurate distinction of myocardial segments with different functional states. Circumferential endocardial strain analysis by STE allowed the best distinction of segments with impaired function from the normokinetic segments.
Authors: Jimmy C Lu; Sowmya Balasubramanian; Sunkyung Yu; Maryam Ghadimi Mahani; Prachi P Agarwal; Adam L Dorfman Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2019-04-25
Authors: Henrique T Moreira; Chike C Nwabuo; Anderson C Armstrong; Satoru Kishi; Ola Gjesdal; Jared P Reis; Pamela J Schreiner; Kiang Liu; Cora E Lewis; Stephen Sidney; Samuel S Gidding; João A C Lima; Bharath Ambale-Venkatesh Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2017-05-13 Impact factor: 7.722