Faraz Pathan1,2,3, Hafisyatul Aiza Zainal Abidin1,4, Quang Ha Vo2, Hui Zhou1,5, Tommaso D'Angelo1,6, Elen Elen1,7, Kazuaki Negishi2,3, Valentina O Puntmann1, Thomas H Marwick2,8, Eike Nagel1. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Imaging, Institute for Experimental and Translational Cardiovascular Imaging, DZHK Centre for Cardiovascular Imaging, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Imaging, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, 17 Liverpool Street, Hobart, Australia. 3. Department of Cardiovascular Imaging, University of Sydney, Nepean Clinical School, Sydney, Australia. 4. Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Kuala Lampur, Malaysia. 5. Department of Radiology, XiangYa Hospital, Central South University, Hunan, China. 6. Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphological and Functional Imaging, G. Martino University Hospital, Messina, Italy. 7. Department of Cardiology, National Cardiovascular Center Harapan Kita, Universitas, Jakarta, Indonesia. 8. Department of Cardiovascular Imaging, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: Left atrial (LA) strain is a prognostic biomarker with utility across a spectrum of acute and chronic cardiovascular pathologies. There are limited data on intervendor differences and no data on intermodality differences for LA strain. We sought to compare the intervendor and intermodality differences between transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) derived LA strain. We hypothesized that various components of atrial strain would show good intervendor and intermodality correlation but that there would be systematic differences between vendors and modalities. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated 54 subjects (43 patients with a clinical indication for CMR and 11 healthy volunteers) in a study comparing TTE- and CMR-derived LA reservoir strain (ƐR), conduit strain (ƐCD), and contractile strain (ƐCT). The LA strain components were evaluated using four dedicated types of post-processing software. We evaluated the correlation and systematic bias between modalities and within each modality. Intervendor and intermodality correlation was: ƐR [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 0.64-0.90)], ƐCD (ICC 0.62-0.89), and ƐCT (ICC 0.58-0.77). There was evidence of systematic bias between vendors and modalities with mean differences ranging from (3.1-12.2%) for ƐR, ƐCD (1.6-8.6%), and ƐCT (0.3-3.6%). Reproducibility analysis revealed intraobserver coefficient of variance (COV) of 6.5-14.6% and interobserver COV of 9.9-18.7%. CONCLUSION: Vendor derived ƐR, ƐCD, and ƐCT demonstrates modest to excellent intervendor and intermodality correlation depending on strain component examined. There are systematic differences in measurements depending on modality and vendor. These differences may be addressed by future studies, which, examine calibration of LA geometry/higher frame rate imaging, semi-quantitative approaches, and improvements in reproducibility. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Left atrial (LA) strain is a prognostic biomarker with utility across a spectrum of acute and chronic cardiovascular pathologies. There are limited data on intervendor differences and no data on intermodality differences for LA strain. We sought to compare the intervendor and intermodality differences between transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) derived LA strain. We hypothesized that various components of atrial strain would show good intervendor and intermodality correlation but that there would be systematic differences between vendors and modalities. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated 54 subjects (43 patients with a clinical indication for CMR and 11 healthy volunteers) in a study comparing TTE- and CMR-derived LA reservoir strain (ƐR), conduit strain (ƐCD), and contractile strain (ƐCT). The LA strain components were evaluated using four dedicated types of post-processing software. We evaluated the correlation and systematic bias between modalities and within each modality. Intervendor and intermodality correlation was: ƐR [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 0.64-0.90)], ƐCD (ICC 0.62-0.89), and ƐCT (ICC 0.58-0.77). There was evidence of systematic bias between vendors and modalities with mean differences ranging from (3.1-12.2%) for ƐR, ƐCD (1.6-8.6%), and ƐCT (0.3-3.6%). Reproducibility analysis revealed intraobserver coefficient of variance (COV) of 6.5-14.6% and interobserver COV of 9.9-18.7%. CONCLUSION: Vendor derived ƐR, ƐCD, and ƐCT demonstrates modest to excellent intervendor and intermodality correlation depending on strain component examined. There are systematic differences in measurements depending on modality and vendor. These differences may be addressed by future studies, which, examine calibration of LA geometry/higher frame rate imaging, semi-quantitative approaches, and improvements in reproducibility. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
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: Sebastian Altmann; Moritz C Halfmann; Ibukun Abidoye; Basel Yacoub; Michaela Schmidt; Philip Wenzel; Christoph Forman; U Joseph Schoepf; Fei Xiong; Christoph Dueber; Karl-Friedrich Kreitner; Akos Varga-Szemes; Tilman Emrich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael Wester; Jan Pec; Simon Lebek; Christoph Fisser; Kurt Debl; Okka Hamer; Florian Poschenrieder; Stefan Buchner; Lars S Maier; Michael Arzt; Stefan Wagner Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-02-16