PURPOSE: Conventional calculation of myocardial strain requires tissue-tracking. A surrogate for strain called global fractional shortening (GFS) is proposed based on changes in dimensions of endocardial and epicardial surfaces without tissue-tracking. METHODS: Three-dimensional endocardial and epicardial left ventricular surfaces traced at end-diastole and end-systole using conventional steady-state free precession cine images were used to calculate GFScc (circumferential), GFSll (longitudinal), and GFSrr (radial) using fractional length changes in each direction over the heart surface. GFS values were validated using finite element models (FEM) and in vivo using tagging-derived strains (εcc ,εll ,εrr ) in patients with a wide range of ejection fraction (EF) and diagnosis (n=32). GFS was also measured in 31 patients with Fabry disease and matched healthy controls. RESULTS: GFS values were within 3% of average FEM-derived Lagrangian strains and had good agreement in vivo (GFScc =-14 ± 4%, εcc =-14 ± 4%, R(2) =0.85; GFSll =-12 ± 4%, εll =-12 ± 4%, R(2) =0.72; GFSrr =46 ± 21%). εrr could not be measured reliably from tagging. Compared with healthy controls with matched EF, patients with Fabry disease had significantly increased GFScc (Endo) (-28 ± 3% versus -25 ± 2%), decreased GFScc(Epi) (-10 ± 2% versus -11 ± 2%) and decreased GFSll for all components. CONCLUSION: GFS yields similar values to conventionally measured strains without requiring tissue-tracking. Compared with controls, patients with Fabry disease have significant differences in several GFS components.
PURPOSE: Conventional calculation of myocardial strain requires tissue-tracking. A surrogate for strain called global fractional shortening (GFS) is proposed based on changes in dimensions of endocardial and epicardial surfaces without tissue-tracking. METHODS: Three-dimensional endocardial and epicardial left ventricular surfaces traced at end-diastole and end-systole using conventional steady-state free precession cine images were used to calculate GFScc (circumferential), GFSll (longitudinal), and GFSrr (radial) using fractional length changes in each direction over the heart surface. GFS values were validated using finite element models (FEM) and in vivo using tagging-derived strains (εcc ,εll ,εrr ) in patients with a wide range of ejection fraction (EF) and diagnosis (n=32). GFS was also measured in 31 patients with Fabry disease and matched healthy controls. RESULTS: GFS values were within 3% of average FEM-derived Lagrangian strains and had good agreement in vivo (GFScc =-14 ± 4%, εcc =-14 ± 4%, R(2) =0.85; GFSll =-12 ± 4%, εll =-12 ± 4%, R(2) =0.72; GFSrr =46 ± 21%). εrr could not be measured reliably from tagging. Compared with healthy controls with matched EF, patients with Fabry disease had significantly increased GFScc (Endo) (-28 ± 3% versus -25 ± 2%), decreased GFScc(Epi) (-10 ± 2% versus -11 ± 2%) and decreased GFSll for all components. CONCLUSION: GFS yields similar values to conventionally measured strains without requiring tissue-tracking. Compared with controls, patients with Fabry disease have significant differences in several GFS components.
Authors: Brendan N Putko; Haran Yogasundaram; Kelvin Chow; Joseph Pagano; Aneal Khan; D Ian Paterson; Richard B Thompson; Gavin Y Oudit Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: T Jake Samuel; Dalane W Kitzman; Mark J Haykowsky; Bharathi Upadhya; Peter Brubaker; M Benjamin Nelson; W Gregory Hundley; Michael D Nelson Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Joseph J Pagano; Kelvin Chow; Aneal Khan; Evangelos Michelakis; Ian Paterson; Gavin Y Oudit; Richard B Thompson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shobhit Mathur; John G Dreisbach; Gauri R Karur; Robert M Iwanochko; Chantal F Morel; Syed Wasim; Elsie T Nguyen; Bernd J Wintersperger; Kate Hanneman Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Jonathan C L Rodrigues; Stephen Rohan; Amardeep Ghosh Dastidar; Adam Trickey; Gergely Szantho; Laura E K Ratcliffe; Amy E Burchell; Emma C Hart; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci; Mark C K Hamilton; Angus K Nightingale; Julian F R Paton; Nathan E Manghat; David H MacIver Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Balaji Tamarappoo; T Jake Samuel; Omeed Elboudwarej; Louise E J Thomson; Haider Aldiwani; Janet Wei; Puja Mehta; Susan Cheng; Behzad Sharif; Ahmed AlBadri; Eileen M Handberg; John Petersen; Carl J Pepine; Michael D Nelson; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2020-11-14 Impact factor: 4.039