Vien T Truong1,2, Cassady Palmer1, Sarah Wolking1, Brandy Sheets1, Michael Young1, Tam N M Ngo1, Michael Taylor3, Sherif F Nagueh4, Karolina M Zareba5, Subha Raman5, Wojciech Mazur1. 1. Cardiology Department, The Christ Hospital Health Network, 2139 Auburn Ave, Cincinnati, OH, 45219, USA. 2. Cardiology Department, The Sue and Bill Butler Research Fellow, The Linder Research Center, 2139 Auburn Ave, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 3. Cardiology Department, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA. 4. Cardiology Department, Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, 6565 Fannin St, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 5. Cardiology Department, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 410W 10th Ave, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of our study was to establish normal ranges for left atrial (LA) strain and strain rate using cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT), LA sphericity index, and to compare LA strain using CMR-FT with 2D-speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) in a healthy population. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 112 volunteers (45 male, 67 female) had adequate tracking for analysis on CMR-FT (Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Calgary, Canada). The median age was 42 years (range 19-79 years, interquartile range 30-53 years). LA reservoir, conduit, booster strain, strain rate using CMR-FT, and sphericity index were evaluated. Of the 112 volunteers, 91 patients had adequate tracking on 2D-STE using three commonly applied zero-baseline time reference methods: R-R gating, P-P gating, and volume gating (defining end-systole at the LA maximum and end-diastole at the LA minimum). The LA strain, strain rate using CMR-FT, and sphericity index were reported and comparable between both genders (P > 0.05 for all). The LA booster function including strain and strain rate increased significantly with age (P < 0.001 for all), while the LA conduit function gradually decreased. In comparison with STE, the LA reservoir strain was comparable between CMR and volume-gating methods (38.48 ± 9.31 vs. 36.77 ± 6.46; P = 0.13) but not with R-R and P-P gating methods (P < 0.001 for all). LA strain, strain rate, and sphericity index using CMR-FT had good intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility. CONCLUSION: LA strain, strain rate using CMR-FT, and sphericity index can be quickly assessed with good intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: The aim of our study was to establish normal ranges for left atrial (LA) strain and strain rate using cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT), LA sphericity index, and to compare LA strain using CMR-FT with 2D-speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) in a healthy population. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 112 volunteers (45 male, 67 female) had adequate tracking for analysis on CMR-FT (Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Calgary, Canada). The median age was 42 years (range 19-79 years, interquartile range 30-53 years). LA reservoir, conduit, booster strain, strain rate using CMR-FT, and sphericity index were evaluated. Of the 112 volunteers, 91 patients had adequate tracking on 2D-STE using three commonly applied zero-baseline time reference methods: R-R gating, P-P gating, and volume gating (defining end-systole at the LA maximum and end-diastole at the LA minimum). The LA strain, strain rate using CMR-FT, and sphericity index were reported and comparable between both genders (P > 0.05 for all). The LA booster function including strain and strain rate increased significantly with age (P < 0.001 for all), while the LA conduit function gradually decreased. In comparison with STE, the LA reservoir strain was comparable between CMR and volume-gating methods (38.48 ± 9.31 vs. 36.77 ± 6.46; P = 0.13) but not with R-R and P-P gating methods (P < 0.001 for all). LA strain, strain rate, and sphericity index using CMR-FT had good intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility. CONCLUSION: LA strain, strain rate using CMR-FT, and sphericity index can be quickly assessed with good intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Hieu T Ta; Vien T Truong; Tarek Alsaied; Paul J Critser; Joshua Germann; Nicholas J Ollberding; Philip R Khoury; Adam W Powell; Sean Lang; Wojciech Mazur; Andrew N Redington; Justin T Tretter Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2021-03-28 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Francesco Bandera; Anita Mollo; Matteo Frigelli; Giulia Guglielmi; Nicoletta Ventrella; Maria Concetta Pastore; Matteo Cameli; Marco Guazzi Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-01-13
Authors: Henrique Doria de Vasconcellos; Theingi Tiffany Win; Ela Chamera; Seo Young Hong; Bharath Ambale Venkatesh; Patrick Young; Xiaoying Yang; Luisa Ciuffo; Ravi K Sharma; Masamichi Imai; Mohammadali Habibi; Colin O Wud; Susan R Heckbert; David A Bluemke; Joao A C Lima Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Mina M Benjamin; Muhammad S Munir; Parth Shah; Menhel Kinno; Mark Rabbat; Thriveni Sanagala; Mushabbar A Syed Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-12-27 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Katherine C Wu; Sabina A Haberlen; Michael W Plankey; Frank J Palella; Damani A Piggott; Gregory D Kirk; Joseph B Margolick; Wendy S Post Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 6.875