PURPOSE: To compare local sine-wave modeling (SinMod) with harmonic phase analysis (HARP), for assessment of left ventricular (LV) circumferential strain (εcc) from tagged cardiovascular magnetic resonance images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mid-ventricular spatial modulation of magnetization was performed in 60 participants (15 each with hypertrophic, dilated or ischemic cardiomyopathy and 15 healthy controls) at 1.5 Tesla. Global and segmental peak transmural εcc were measured using HARP and SinMod. Repeated measurements were performed on 25% of examinations to assess observer variability. Effect of contrast was assessed in 10 additional patients. RESULTS: SinMod showed a high level of agreement with HARP for global εcc (mean difference -0.02, 95% limits of agreement -6.46 to 6.43%). Agreement was much lower for segmental εcc. Both methods showed excellent observer agreement for global εcc (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.75). Observer agreement for segmental εcc was also excellent with SinMod, but was significantly lower with HARP. Analysis time was significantly shorter using SinMod. Pre- and postcontrast εcc measurements were not significantly different using either technique, although postcontrast measurements showed greater variability with HARP. CONCLUSION: SinMod and HARP-based measurements of global εcc have a high level of agreement, but segmental agreement is substantially lower. SinMod has generally lower observer variability, is faster and is less affected by contrast, but requires further validation.
PURPOSE: To compare local sine-wave modeling (SinMod) with harmonic phase analysis (HARP), for assessment of left ventricular (LV) circumferential strain (εcc) from tagged cardiovascular magnetic resonance images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mid-ventricular spatial modulation of magnetization was performed in 60 participants (15 each with hypertrophic, dilated or ischemic cardiomyopathy and 15 healthy controls) at 1.5 Tesla. Global and segmental peak transmural εcc were measured using HARP and SinMod. Repeated measurements were performed on 25% of examinations to assess observer variability. Effect of contrast was assessed in 10 additional patients. RESULTS: SinMod showed a high level of agreement with HARP for global εcc (mean difference -0.02, 95% limits of agreement -6.46 to 6.43%). Agreement was much lower for segmental εcc. Both methods showed excellent observer agreement for global εcc (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.75). Observer agreement for segmental εcc was also excellent with SinMod, but was significantly lower with HARP. Analysis time was significantly shorter using SinMod. Pre- and postcontrast εcc measurements were not significantly different using either technique, although postcontrast measurements showed greater variability with HARP. CONCLUSION: SinMod and HARP-based measurements of global εcc have a high level of agreement, but segmental agreement is substantially lower. SinMod has generally lower observer variability, is faster and is less affected by contrast, but requires further validation.
Authors: Nadine Kawel-Boehm; Scott J Hetzel; Bharath Ambale-Venkatesh; Gabriella Captur; Christopher J Francois; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Michael Salerno; Shawn D Teague; Emanuela Valsangiacomo-Buechel; Rob J van der Geest; David A Bluemke Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Nadine Kawel-Boehm; Alicia Maceira; Emanuela R Valsangiacomo-Buechel; Jens Vogel-Claussen; Evrim B Turkbey; Rupert Williams; Sven Plein; Michael Tee; John Eng; David A Bluemke Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Wouter M van Everdingen; Alwin Zweerink; Robin Nijveldt; Odette A E Salden; Mathias Meine; Alexander H Maass; Kevin Vernooy; Frederik J De Lange; Albert C van Rossum; Pierre Croisille; Patrick Clarysse; Bastiaan Geelhoed; Michiel Rienstra; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Marc A Vos; Cornelis P Allaart; Maarten J Cramer Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Alwin Zweerink; Cornelis P Allaart; Joost P A Kuijer; LiNa Wu; Aernout M Beek; Peter M van de Ven; Mathias Meine; Pierre Croisille; Patrick Clarysse; Albert C van Rossum; Robin Nijveldt Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alwin Zweerink; Wouter M van Everdingen; Robin Nijveldt; Odette A E Salden; Mathias Meine; Alexander H Maass; Kevin Vernooy; Frederik J de Lange; Marc A Vos; Pierre Croisille; Patrick Clarysse; Bastiaan Geelhoed; Michiel Rienstra; Isabelle C van Gelder; Albert C van Rossum; Maarten J Cramer; Cornelis P Allaart Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2018-07-26
Authors: Christopher A Miller; Josephine H Naish; Steven M Shaw; Nizar Yonan; Simon G Williams; David Clark; Paul W Bishop; Mark P Ainslie; Alex Borg; Glyn Coutts; Geoffrey J M Parker; Simon G Ray; Matthias Schmitt Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-07-20 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Aghogho Odudu; Mohamed Tarek Eldehni; Gerry P McCann; Mark A Horsfield; Tobias Breidthardt; Christopher W McIntyre Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sheraz A Nazir; Abhishek M Shetye; Jamal N Khan; Anvesha Singh; Jayanth R Arnold; Iain Squire; Gerry P McCann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-03-09 Impact factor: 2.357