PURPOSE: To compare cardiovascular magnetic resonance-feature tracking (CMR-FT) with spatial modulation of magnetization (SPAMM) tagged imaging for the calculation of short and long axis Lagrangian strain measures in systole and diastole. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthy controls (n = 35) and patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 10) were identified prospectively and underwent steady-state free precession (SSFP) cine imaging and SPAMM imaging using a gradient-echo sequence. A timed offline analysis of images acquired at identical horizontal long and short axis slice positions was performed using CMR-FT and dynamic tissue-tagging (CIMTag2D). Agreement between strain and strain rate (SR) values calculated using these two different methods was assessed using the Bland-Altman technique. RESULTS: Across all participants, there was good agreement between CMR-FT and CIMTag for calculation of peak systolic global circumferential strain (-22.7 ± 6.2% vs. -22.5 ± 6.9%, bias 0.2 ± 4.0%) and SR (-1.35 ± 0.42 1/s vs. -1.22 ± 0.42 1/s, bias 0.13 ± 0.33 1/s) and early diastolic global circumferential SR (1.21 ± 0.44 1/s vs. 1.07 ± 0.30 1/s, bias -0.14 ± 0.34 1/s) at the subendocardium. There was satisfactory agreement for derivation of peak systolic global longitudinal strain (-18.1 ± 5.0% vs. -16.7 ± 4.8%, bias 1.3 ± 3.8%) and SR (-1.04 ± 0.29 1/s vs. -0.95 ± 0.32 1/s, bias 0.09 ± 0.26 1/s). The weakest agreement was for early diastolic global longitudinal SR (1.10 ± 0.40 1/s vs. 0.67 ± 0.32 1/s, bias -0.42 ± 0.40 1/s), although the correlation remained significant (r = 0.42, P < 0.01). CMR-FT generated these data over four times quicker than CIMTag. CONCLUSION: There is sufficient agreement between systolic and diastolic strain measures calculated using CMR-FT and myocardial tagging for CMR-FT to be considered as a potentially feasible and rapid alternative.
PURPOSE: To compare cardiovascular magnetic resonance-feature tracking (CMR-FT) with spatial modulation of magnetization (SPAMM) tagged imaging for the calculation of short and long axis Lagrangian strain measures in systole and diastole. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthy controls (n = 35) and patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 10) were identified prospectively and underwent steady-state free precession (SSFP) cine imaging and SPAMM imaging using a gradient-echo sequence. A timed offline analysis of images acquired at identical horizontal long and short axis slice positions was performed using CMR-FT and dynamic tissue-tagging (CIMTag2D). Agreement between strain and strain rate (SR) values calculated using these two different methods was assessed using the Bland-Altman technique. RESULTS: Across all participants, there was good agreement between CMR-FT and CIMTag for calculation of peak systolic global circumferential strain (-22.7 ± 6.2% vs. -22.5 ± 6.9%, bias 0.2 ± 4.0%) and SR (-1.35 ± 0.42 1/s vs. -1.22 ± 0.42 1/s, bias 0.13 ± 0.33 1/s) and early diastolic global circumferential SR (1.21 ± 0.44 1/s vs. 1.07 ± 0.30 1/s, bias -0.14 ± 0.34 1/s) at the subendocardium. There was satisfactory agreement for derivation of peak systolic global longitudinal strain (-18.1 ± 5.0% vs. -16.7 ± 4.8%, bias 1.3 ± 3.8%) and SR (-1.04 ± 0.29 1/s vs. -0.95 ± 0.32 1/s, bias 0.09 ± 0.26 1/s). The weakest agreement was for early diastolic global longitudinal SR (1.10 ± 0.40 1/s vs. 0.67 ± 0.32 1/s, bias -0.42 ± 0.40 1/s), although the correlation remained significant (r = 0.42, P < 0.01). CMR-FT generated these data over four times quicker than CIMTag. CONCLUSION: There is sufficient agreement between systolic and diastolic strain measures calculated using CMR-FT and myocardial tagging for CMR-FT to be considered as a potentially feasible and rapid alternative.
Authors: Florian André; Florian T Stock; Johannes Riffel; Evangelos Giannitsis; Henning Steen; Jürgen Scharhag; Hugo A Katus; Sebastian J Buss Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Bee Ting Chan; Hak Koon Yeoh; Yih Miin Liew; Yang Faridah Abdul Aziz; Ganiga Srinivasaiah Sridhar; Christian Hamilton-Craig; David Platts; Einly Lim Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Keigo Kawaji; Noreen Nazir; John A Blair; Victor Mor-Avi; Stephanie Besser; Kohei Matsumoto; Jacob P Goes; Darius Dabir; Lukas Stoiber; Sebastian Kelle; Seyedeh Mahsa Zamani; Luise Holzhauser; Roberto M Lang; Amit R Patel Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Sean M Hamlet; Christopher M Haggerty; Jonathan D Suever; Gregory J Wehner; Kristin N Andres; David K Powell; Xiaodong Zhong; Brandon K Fornwalt Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 4.813