Miho Fukui1, Jeffrey Xu1, Islam Abdelkarim1, Michael S Sharbaugh1, Floyd W Thoma1, Andrew D Althouse1, Gianni Pedrizzetti2, João L Cavalcante3. 1. University of Pittsburgh, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2. Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy. 3. University of Pittsburgh, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: joao.cavalcante@allina.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Global longitudinal strain (GLS) detects subclinical myocardial changes in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). Although GLS is typically measured by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), assessment by multiphasic gated computed tomography angiography (CTA) has become recently available. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of CTA-derived GLS assessment and compare its agreement with TTE using the same post-processing software in severe AS patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) evaluation. METHODS: We evaluated patients with severe AS, sinus rhythm and adequate image quality for GLS analysis by both CTA and TTE pre-TAVR using 2D CT-Cardiac Performance Analysis prototype software (TomTec). The 18-segment model was used for GLS analysis by averaging the three long-axis views in both CTA and TTE studies. Agreement was assessed using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: A total of 123 consecutive patients were included (mean age 84 ± 7 years, 45% female). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by CTA and TTE were similar 53 ± 14% for both. On average, CTA-derived GLS was greater than by TTE (-20 ± 6.5% vs. -16 ± 4.9%, respectively, p < 0.001). There was a moderate correlation between GLS assessed by CTA vs. TTE (r = 0.62, p < 0.001), although variability between imaging methods existed. The correlation between GLS and LVEF was strong (r = -0.90, p < 0.001 for CTA, r = -0.88, p < 0.001 for TTE) using the same imaging modality. CONCLUSION: CTA-derived GLS assessment is feasible in selected patients with sinus rhythm and adequate image quality. The agreement of GLS between TTE and CTA is moderate but not interchangeable suggesting a potential modality-specific GLS threshold.
BACKGROUND: Global longitudinal strain (GLS) detects subclinical myocardial changes in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). Although GLS is typically measured by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), assessment by multiphasic gated computed tomography angiography (CTA) has become recently available. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of CTA-derived GLS assessment and compare its agreement with TTE using the same post-processing software in severe AS patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) evaluation. METHODS: We evaluated patients with severe AS, sinus rhythm and adequate image quality for GLS analysis by both CTA and TTE pre-TAVR using 2D CT-Cardiac Performance Analysis prototype software (TomTec). The 18-segment model was used for GLS analysis by averaging the three long-axis views in both CTA and TTE studies. Agreement was assessed using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: A total of 123 consecutive patients were included (mean age 84 ± 7 years, 45% female). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by CTA and TTE were similar 53 ± 14% for both. On average, CTA-derived GLS was greater than by TTE (-20 ± 6.5% vs. -16 ± 4.9%, respectively, p < 0.001). There was a moderate correlation between GLS assessed by CTA vs. TTE (r = 0.62, p < 0.001), although variability between imaging methods existed. The correlation between GLS and LVEF was strong (r = -0.90, p < 0.001 for CTA, r = -0.88, p < 0.001 for TTE) using the same imaging modality. CONCLUSION: CTA-derived GLS assessment is feasible in selected patients with sinus rhythm and adequate image quality. The agreement of GLS between TTE and CTA is moderate but not interchangeable suggesting a potential modality-specific GLS threshold.
Authors: Aamir H Twing; Brody Slostad; Christina Anderson; Sreenivas Konda; Elliott M Groves; Mayank M Kansal Journal: Am J Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2021-04-15
Authors: Gilberto J Aquino; Josua A Decker; U Joseph Schoepf; Landin Carson; Namrata Paladugu; Basel Yacoub; Verena Brandt; Anna Lena Emrich; Florian Schwarz; Jeremy R Burt; Richard Bayer; Akos Varga-Szemes; Tilman Emrich Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2022-06-30
Authors: Todd C Villines; Subhi J Al'Aref; Daniele Andreini; Marcus Y Chen; Andrew D Choi; Carlo N De Cecco; Damini Dey; James P Earls; Maros Ferencik; Heidi Gransar; Harvey Hecht; Jonathon A Leipsic; Michael T Lu; Mohamed Marwan; Pál Maurovich-Horvat; Edward Nicol; Gianluca Pontone; Jonathan Weir-McCall; Seamus P Whelton; Michelle C Williams; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Gudrun M Feuchtner Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2021-02-22
Authors: Allard T van den Hoven; Sultan Yilmazer; Raluca G Chelu; Roderick W J van Grootel; Savine C S Minderhoud; Lidia R Bons; An M van Berendoncks; Anthonie L Duijnhouwer; Hans-Marc J Siebelink; Annemien E van den Bosch; Ricardo P J Budde; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink; Alexander Hirsch Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Marius Vach; Johanna Vogelhuber; Marcel Weber; Alois M Sprinkart; Claus C Pieper; Wolfgang Block; Daniel Kuetting; Ulrike I Attenberger; Julian A Luetkens Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Andreea Calin; Anca D Mateescu; Andreea C Popescu; Rong Bing; Marc R Dweck; Bogdan A Popescu Journal: Heart Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Emilija Miskinyte; Paulius Bucius; Jennifer Erley; Seyedeh Mahsa Zamani; Radu Tanacli; Christian Stehning; Christopher Schneeweis; Tomas Lapinskas; Burkert Pieske; Volkmar Falk; Rolf Gebker; Gianni Pedrizzetti; Natalia Solowjowa; Sebastian Kelle Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 4.241