AIMS: Separate analysis of endocardial and epicardial myocardial layer deformation has become possible using strain-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (SENC) and 2D-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (Echo). This study evaluated and compared both modalities for the assessment of infarct transmurality as defined by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). METHODS AND RESULTS: In 29 patients (age 62.4 ± 11.7 years, 23 male) with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, SENC using 1.5 T CMR and Echo were performed. Peak circumferential systolic strain of the endocardial and the epicardial layer of 304 myocardial segments was assessed by SENC and by Echo. The segmental transmurality of myocardial infarction was determined as relative amount of LGE (0%: no infarction; 1-50%: non-transmural infarction; 51-100%: transmural infarction). Endocardial and epicardial strain defined by SENC and by Echo differed significantly between segments of different infarct transmurality determined by CMR. Endocardial layer circumferential strain analysis by Echo and by SENC allowed distinction of segments with non-transmural infarction from non-infarcted segments with similar accuracy [area under the curve (AUC) 0.699 vs. 0.649, respectively, P = 0.239]. Epicardial layer circumferential strain analysis by Echo and by SENC allowed distinction of transmural from non-transmural myocardial infarction defined by LGE CMR with similar accuracy (AUC 0.721 vs. 0.664, respectively, P = 0.401). Endocardial strain by SENC correlated moderately with endocardial strain by Echo (r = 0.50; standard error of estimate = 5.2%). CONCLUSION: Layer-specific analysis of myocardial deformation by Echo and by SENC allows discrimination between different transmurality categories of myocardial infarction with similar accuracy. However, accuracy of both methods is non-optimal, indicating that further tools for improvement should be evaluated in the future.
AIMS: Separate analysis of endocardial and epicardial myocardial layer deformation has become possible using strain-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (SENC) and 2D-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (Echo). This study evaluated and compared both modalities for the assessment of infarct transmurality as defined by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). METHODS AND RESULTS: In 29 patients (age 62.4 ± 11.7 years, 23 male) with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, SENC using 1.5 T CMR and Echo were performed. Peak circumferential systolic strain of the endocardial and the epicardial layer of 304 myocardial segments was assessed by SENC and by Echo. The segmental transmurality of myocardial infarction was determined as relative amount of LGE (0%: no infarction; 1-50%: non-transmural infarction; 51-100%: transmural infarction). Endocardial and epicardial strain defined by SENC and by Echo differed significantly between segments of different infarct transmurality determined by CMR. Endocardial layer circumferential strain analysis by Echo and by SENC allowed distinction of segments with non-transmural infarction from non-infarcted segments with similar accuracy [area under the curve (AUC) 0.699 vs. 0.649, respectively, P = 0.239]. Epicardial layer circumferential strain analysis by Echo and by SENC allowed distinction of transmural from non-transmural myocardial infarction defined by LGE CMR with similar accuracy (AUC 0.721 vs. 0.664, respectively, P = 0.401). Endocardial strain by SENC correlated moderately with endocardial strain by Echo (r = 0.50; standard error of estimate = 5.2%). CONCLUSION: Layer-specific analysis of myocardial deformation by Echo and by SENC allows discrimination between different transmurality categories of myocardial infarction with similar accuracy. However, accuracy of both methods is non-optimal, indicating that further tools for improvement should be evaluated in the future.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Echocardiography; Myocardial contraction
Authors: Médéa Locquet; Daan Spoor; Anne Crijns; Pim van der Harst; Arantxa Eraso; Ferran Guedea; Manuela Fiuza; Susana Constantino Rosa Santos; Stephanie Combs; Kai Borm; Elie Mousseaux; Umit Gencer; Guy Frija; Elisabeth Cardis; Hans Langendijk; Sophie Jacob Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Dana Cramariuc; Eva Gerdts; Johannes Just Hjertaas; Alexandru Cramariuc; Einar Skulstad Davidsen; Knut Matre Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 2.062