Manuel Barreiro-Pérez1,2, Davide Curione1, Rolf Symons1, Piet Claus3, Jens-Uwe Voigt4, Jan Bogaert5. 1. Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. 2. Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca (IBSAL), Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Salamanca, y CIBERCV, Salamanca, Spain. 3. Laboratory on Cardiovascular Imaging & Dynamics, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. jan.bogaert@uzleuven.be.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature-tracking (CMR-FT) packages to assess global left ventricular (LV) myocardial strain. METHODS: In 45 subjects (i.e. 15 controls, 15 acute myocardial infarction, 15 dilated cardiomyopathy patients), we determined inter-vendor, inter-observer (two readers) and intra-observer reproducibility of peak systolic global radial, circumferential and longitudinal strain (GRS, GCS and GLS, respectively) comparing four commercially available software packages. Differences between vendors were assessed with analysis of variance (ANOVA), between observers and readings with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: The normalised end-diastolic volume was 91, 77 and 119 ml/m2 (median, Q1, Q3) and ejection fraction was 41 ± 14%, range 12-67%. Global longitudinal strain (GLS), global circumferential strain (GCS) and global radial strain (GRS) values were 13.9% ± 5.4% (3.9-23.8%), 12.2% ± 5.8% (1.0-25.1%) and 32.0% ± 14.7 (3.6-67.8%), respectively. ANOVA showed significant differences between vendors for GRS (p < 0.001) and GLS (p = 0.018), not for GCS (p = 0.379). No significant bias was found for both intra- and inter-observer variability. The ICC for inter- and intra-observer reproducibility ranged 0.828-0.991 and 0.902-0.997, respectively. The CV, however, ranged considerably, i.e. 4.0-28.8% and 2.8- 27.7% for inter- and intra-observer reproducibility, respectively. In particular, for GRS differences in CV values between vendors were large, i.e. 5.2-28.8% and 2.8-27.7%, for inter- and intra-observer reproducibility, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of subjects with a wide range of cardiac performances, GRS and GLS values are not interchangeable between vendors. Moreover, although intra- and inter-observer reproducibility amongst vendors is excellent, some vendors encounter problems to reproducibly measure global radial strain. KEY POINTS: • Different software packages are currently available for myocardial strain assessment using routinely acquired cine CMR images. • Global myocardial strain values are not interchangeable between vendors for global longitudinal and global radial strain. • Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility for global strain assessment is excellent. However, some vendors encounter problems to reproducibly measure global radial strain.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature-tracking (CMR-FT) packages to assess global left ventricular (LV) myocardial strain. METHODS: In 45 subjects (i.e. 15 controls, 15 acute myocardial infarction, 15 dilated cardiomyopathypatients), we determined inter-vendor, inter-observer (two readers) and intra-observer reproducibility of peak systolic global radial, circumferential and longitudinal strain (GRS, GCS and GLS, respectively) comparing four commercially available software packages. Differences between vendors were assessed with analysis of variance (ANOVA), between observers and readings with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: The normalised end-diastolic volume was 91, 77 and 119 ml/m2 (median, Q1, Q3) and ejection fraction was 41 ± 14%, range 12-67%. Global longitudinal strain (GLS), global circumferential strain (GCS) and global radial strain (GRS) values were 13.9% ± 5.4% (3.9-23.8%), 12.2% ± 5.8% (1.0-25.1%) and 32.0% ± 14.7 (3.6-67.8%), respectively. ANOVA showed significant differences between vendors for GRS (p < 0.001) and GLS (p = 0.018), not for GCS (p = 0.379). No significant bias was found for both intra- and inter-observer variability. The ICC for inter- and intra-observer reproducibility ranged 0.828-0.991 and 0.902-0.997, respectively. The CV, however, ranged considerably, i.e. 4.0-28.8% and 2.8- 27.7% for inter- and intra-observer reproducibility, respectively. In particular, for GRS differences in CV values between vendors were large, i.e. 5.2-28.8% and 2.8-27.7%, for inter- and intra-observer reproducibility, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of subjects with a wide range of cardiac performances, GRS and GLS values are not interchangeable between vendors. Moreover, although intra- and inter-observer reproducibility amongst vendors is excellent, some vendors encounter problems to reproducibly measure global radial strain. KEY POINTS: • Different software packages are currently available for myocardial strain assessment using routinely acquired cine CMR images. • Global myocardial strain values are not interchangeable between vendors for global longitudinal and global radial strain. • Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility for global strain assessment is excellent. However, some vendors encounter problems to reproducibly measure global radial strain.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dilated cardiomyopathy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Myocardial infarction; Myocardium
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Andreas Schuster; Kan N Hor; Johannes T Kowallick; Philipp Beerbaum; Shelby Kutty Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Oana Mirea; Efstathios D Pagourelias; Jurgen Duchenne; Jan Bogaert; James D Thomas; Luigi P Badano; Jens-Uwe Voigt Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-05-17
Authors: Konstantinos E Farsalinos; Ana M Daraban; Serkan Ünlü; James D Thomas; Luigi P Badano; Jens-Uwe Voigt Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Anvesha Singh; Christopher D Steadman; Jamal N Khan; Mark A Horsfield; Soliana Bekele; Sheraz A Nazir; Prathap Kanagala; Nicholas G D Masca; Patrick Clarysse; Gerry P McCann Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Pedro Morais; Alberto Marchi; Julie A Bogaert; Tom Dresselaers; Brecht Heyde; Jan D'hooge; Jan Bogaert Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Mimount Bourfiss; Davis M Vigneault; Mounes Aliyari Ghasebeh; Brittney Murray; Cynthia A James; Crystal Tichnell; Firdaus A Mohamed Hoesein; Stefan L Zimmerman; Ihab R Kamel; Hugh Calkins; Harikrishna Tandri; Birgitta K Velthuis; David A Bluemke; Anneline S J M Te Riele Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Felicia Seemann; Jonathan Berg; Kristian Solem; Robert Jablonowski; Håkan Arheden; Marcus Carlsson; Einar Heiberg Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2020-08-20
Authors: Jennifer Erley; Radu Tanacli; Davide Genovese; Natalie Tapaskar; Nina Rashedi; Paulius Bucius; Keigo Kawaji; Ilya Karagodin; Roberto M Lang; Sebastian Kelle; Victor Mor-Avi; Amit R Patel Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 5.364