BACKGROUND: Myocardial strain imaging using echocardiography can be a cost-effective method to quantify ventricular wall motion objectively, but few studies have compared strain measured with echocardiography against magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in small animals. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared circumferential strain (CS) and radial strain (RS) measured with echocardiography (velocity vector imaging [VVI]) to displacement encoding with stimulated-echo MRI in 2 mouse models of cardiomyopathy. In 3-month-old mice with gene targeted deficiency of cardiac myosin-binding protein-C (cMyBP-C(-/-), n=6) or muscle LIM protein (MLP(-/-), n=6), and wild-type mice (n=8), myocardial strains were measured at 3 cross-sectional levels and averaged to obtain global strains. There was modest correlation between VVI and MRI measured strains, with global CS yielding stronger correlation compared with global RS (CS R(2)=0.4452 versus RS R(2)=0.2794, both P<0.05). Overall, strain measured by VVI was more variable than MRI (P<0.05) and the limits of agreement were slightly, but not significantly (P=0.14), closer for global CS than RS. Both VVI and MRI strain measurements showed significantly lower global CS strain in the knockout groups compared with the wild type. The VVI (but not MRI) CS strain measurements were different between the 2 knockout groups (-14.5±3.8% versus -6.6±4.0%, cMyBP-C(-/-) versus MLP(-/-) respectively, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of left ventricular CS and RS are feasible in small animals using 2-dimensional echocardiography. VVI and MRI strain measurements correlated modestly and the agreement between the modalities tended to be greater for CS than RS. Although VVI and MRI strains were able to differentiate between wild-type and knockout mice, only global CS VVI differentiated between the 2 models of cardiomyopathy.
BACKGROUND: Myocardial strain imaging using echocardiography can be a cost-effective method to quantify ventricular wall motion objectively, but few studies have compared strain measured with echocardiography against magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in small animals. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared circumferential strain (CS) and radial strain (RS) measured with echocardiography (velocity vector imaging [VVI]) to displacement encoding with stimulated-echo MRI in 2 mouse models of cardiomyopathy. In 3-month-old mice with gene targeted deficiency of cardiac myosin-binding protein-C (cMyBP-C(-/-), n=6) or muscle LIM protein (MLP(-/-), n=6), and wild-type mice (n=8), myocardial strains were measured at 3 cross-sectional levels and averaged to obtain global strains. There was modest correlation between VVI and MRI measured strains, with global CS yielding stronger correlation compared with global RS (CS R(2)=0.4452 versus RS R(2)=0.2794, both P<0.05). Overall, strain measured by VVI was more variable than MRI (P<0.05) and the limits of agreement were slightly, but not significantly (P=0.14), closer for global CS than RS. Both VVI and MRI strain measurements showed significantly lower global CS strain in the knockout groups compared with the wild type. The VVI (but not MRI) CS strain measurements were different between the 2 knockout groups (-14.5±3.8% versus -6.6±4.0%, cMyBP-C(-/-) versus MLP(-/-) respectively, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of left ventricular CS and RS are feasible in small animals using 2-dimensional echocardiography. VVI and MRI strain measurements correlated modestly and the agreement between the modalities tended to be greater for CS than RS. Although VVI and MRI strains were able to differentiate between wild-type and knockout mice, only global CS VVI differentiated between the 2 models of cardiomyopathy.
Authors: Samantha P Harris; Christopher R Bartley; Timothy A Hacker; Kerry S McDonald; Pamela S Douglas; Marion L Greaser; Patricia A Powers; Richard L Moss Journal: Circ Res Date: 2002-03-22 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Sheryl E Koch; Kevin J Haworth; Nathan Robbins; Margaret A Smith; Navneet Lather; Ahmad Anjak; Min Jiang; Priyanka Varma; W Keith Jones; Jack Rubinstein Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Christoph Maier; Ines Schadock; Philipp K Haber; Jan Wysocki; Minghao Ye; Yashpal Kanwar; Christopher A Flask; Xin Yu; Brian D Hoit; Gregory N Adams; Alvin H Schmaier; Michael Bader; Daniel Batlle Journal: J Mol Med (Berl) Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Jana Grune; Annelie Blumrich; Sarah Brix; Sarah Jeuthe; Cathleen Drescher; Tilman Grune; Anna Foryst-Ludwig; Daniel Messroghli; Wolfgang M Kuebler; Christiane Ott; Ulrich Kintscher Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2018-07-03 Impact factor: 2.062
Authors: Norman McDicken; Adrian Thomson; Audrey White; Iqbal Toor; Gillian Gray; Carmel Moran; Robin J Watson; Tom Anderson Journal: Echo Res Pract Date: 2019-12-01
Authors: J Ngo; M Matsuyama; C Kim; I Poventud-Fuentes; A Bates; S L Siedlak; H-G Lee; Y Q Doughman; M Watanabe; A Liner; B Hoit; N Voelkel; S Gerson; P Hasty; S Matsuyama Journal: Cell Death Dis Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 8.469
Authors: Tomas Lapinskas; Sebastian Kelle; Jana Grune; Anna Foryst-Ludwig; Heike Meyborg; Sarah Jeuthe; Ernst Wellnhofer; Ahmed Elsanhoury; Burkert Pieske; Rolf Gebker; Ulrich Kintscher; Philipp Stawowy Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Emil K S Espe; Jan Magnus Aronsen; Kristine Skårdal; Jürgen E Schneider; Lili Zhang; Ivar Sjaastad Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 5.364