Zachary J Il'Giovine1, Hillary Mulder2, Karen Chiswell2, Kristine Arges3, Jennifer Tomfohr3, Abraham Hashmi4, Eric J Velazquez5, Joseph A Kisslo3, Zainab Samad3, Sudarshan Rajagopal6. 1. Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan. 5. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: sudarshan.rajagopal@dm.duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Right ventricular peak systolic longitudinal strain (RVLS) has emerged as an approach for quantifying right ventricular function in diseases such as pulmonary hypertension and congenital heart disease. A major limitation in applying RVLS is that strain imaging and analysis are proprietary, which may result in systematic differences from vendor to vendor. The goal of this study was to test the reproducibility of right ventricular strain analysis among selected vendor-specific software (VSS) and vendor-independent software (VIS) on images obtained from different ultrasound scanners, as would be common in clinical practice or in a multicenter clinical trial. METHODS: In this prospective, single-center study, 35 patients (5 healthy subjects and 30 with pulmonary hypertension) each underwent two echocardiographic scans, one using GE (Vivid E9) and the other using Philips (iE33) ultrasound systems. Images were analyzed using both VSS and VIS (TomTec) software for determination of RVLS. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to assess for any systematic differences among methods, as well as effects of scanner and software and a possible interaction between scanner and software for each strain measurement. RESULTS: Differences for global strains were not statistically significant among VSS packages (P ≥ .05), but some differences were noted between VSS and VIS. Wide variability between regional peak strain measurements was noted, but no systematic differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Global RVLS values between VSS systems are not significantly different but may differ slightly from VIS. When comparing regional strain between VSS and VIS analyses, there is widespread variability without clear systematic differences.
BACKGROUND: Right ventricular peak systolic longitudinal strain (RVLS) has emerged as an approach for quantifying right ventricular function in diseases such as pulmonary hypertension and congenital heart disease. A major limitation in applying RVLS is that strain imaging and analysis are proprietary, which may result in systematic differences from vendor to vendor. The goal of this study was to test the reproducibility of right ventricular strain analysis among selected vendor-specific software (VSS) and vendor-independent software (VIS) on images obtained from different ultrasound scanners, as would be common in clinical practice or in a multicenter clinical trial. METHODS: In this prospective, single-center study, 35 patients (5 healthy subjects and 30 with pulmonary hypertension) each underwent two echocardiographic scans, one using GE (Vivid E9) and the other using Philips (iE33) ultrasound systems. Images were analyzed using both VSS and VIS (TomTec) software for determination of RVLS. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to assess for any systematic differences among methods, as well as effects of scanner and software and a possible interaction between scanner and software for each strain measurement. RESULTS: Differences for global strains were not statistically significant among VSS packages (P ≥ .05), but some differences were noted between VSS and VIS. Wide variability between regional peak strain measurements was noted, but no systematic differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Global RVLS values between VSS systems are not significantly different but may differ slightly from VIS. When comparing regional strain between VSS and VIS analyses, there is widespread variability without clear systematic differences.
Authors: Jens-Uwe Voigt; Gianni Pedrizzetti; Peter Lysyansky; Tom H Marwick; Hélène Houle; Rolf Baumann; Stefano Pedri; Yasuhiro Ito; Yasuhiko Abe; Stephen Metz; Joo Hyun Song; Jamie Hamilton; Partho P Sengupta; Theodore J Kolias; Jan d'Hooge; Gerard P Aurigemma; James D Thomas; Luigi Paolo Badano Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Niels Risum; Sophia Ali; Niels T Olsen; Christian Jons; Michel G Khouri; Trine K Lauridsen; Zainab Samad; Eric J Velazquez; Peter Sogaard; Joseph Kisslo Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Daniel Forsha; Niels Risum; P Andrea Kropf; Sudarshan Rajagopal; P Brian Smith; Ronald J Kanter; Zainab Samad; Peter Sogaard; Piers Barker; Joseph Kisslo Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Michael D McGoon; Raymond L Benza; Pilar Escribano-Subias; Xin Jiang; Dave P Miller; Andrew J Peacock; Joanna Pepke-Zaba; Tomas Pulido; Stuart Rich; Stephan Rosenkranz; Samy Suissa; Marc Humbert Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Marlieke L A Haeck; Roderick W C Scherptong; Nina Ajmone Marsan; Eduard R Holman; Martin J Schalij; Jeroen J Bax; Hubert W Vliegen; Victoria Delgado Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Shahryar M Chowdhury; Ziyad M Hijazi; John T Fahey; John F Rhodes; Saibal Kar; Raj Makkar; Michael Mullen; Qi-Ling Cao; Girish S Shirali Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2015-06-24 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Jakob Park; Yekaterina Kim; Jason Pereira; Kerrilynn C Hennessey; Kamil F Faridi; Robert L McNamara; Eric J Velazquez; David J Hur; Lissa Sugeng; Vratika Agarwal Journal: Am Heart J Plus Date: 2021-06-01