Sören J Backhaus1,2, Georg Metschies1,2, Victoria Zieschang3, Jennifer Erley3, Seyedeh Mahsa Zamani3, Johannes T Kowallick2,4, Tomas Lapinskas3,5,6, Burkert Pieske3,5, Joachim Lotz2,3, Shelby Kutty7, Gerd Hasenfuß1,2, Sebastian Kelle3,5, Andreas Schuster1,2. 1. Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University, Göttingen, Germany. 2. German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. 3. German Heart Center Berlin, Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Charité Campus Virchow Clinic, University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 4. University Medical Center Göttingen, Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Georg-August University, Göttingen, Germany. 5. German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, Berlin, Germany. 6. Department of Cardiology, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania. 7. Taussig Heart Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Myocardial feature-tracking (FT) deformation imaging is superior for risk stratification compared with volumetric approaches. Because there is no clear recommendation regarding FT postprocessing, we compared different FT-strain analyses with reference standard techniques, including tagging and strain-encoded (SENC) MRI. METHODS: Feature-tracking software from four different vendors (TomTec, Medis, Circle [CVI], and Neosoft), tagging (Segment), and fastSENC (MyoStrain) were used to determine left ventricular global circumferential strains (GCS) and longitudinal strains (GLS) in 12 healthy volunteers and 12 patients with heart failure. Variability and agreements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients for absolute agreement (ICCa) and consistency (ICCc) as well as Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: For FT-GCS, consistency was excellent comparing different FT vendors (ICCc = 0.84-0.97, r = 0.86-0.95) and in comparison to fast SENC (ICCc = 0.78-0.89, r = 0.73-0.81). FT-GCS consistency was excellent compared with tagging (ICCc = 0.79-0.85, r = 0.74-0.77) except for TomTec (ICCc = 0.68, r = 0.72). Absolute FT-GCS agreements among FT vendors were highest for CVI and Medis (ICCa = 0.96) and lowest for TomTec and Neosoft (ICCa = 0.32). Similarly, absolute FT-GCS agreements were excellent for CVI and Medis compared with both tagging and fast SENC (ICCa = 0.84-0.88), good to excellent for Neosoft (ICCa = 0.77 and 0.64), and lowest for TomTec (ICCa = 0.41 and 0.47). For FT-GLS, consistency was excellent (ICCc ≥ 0.86, r ≥ 0.76). Absolute agreements among FT vendors were excellent (ICCa = 0.91-0.93) or good to excellent for TomTec (ICCa = 0.69-0.85). Absolute agreements (ICCa) were good (CVI 0.70, Medis 0.60) and fair (TomTec 0.41, Neosoft 0.59) compared with tagging, but excellent compared with fast SENC (ICCa = 0.77-0.90). CONCLUSION: Although absolute agreements differ depending on deformation assessment approaches, consistency and correlation are consistently high regardless of the method chosen, thus indicating reliable strain assessment. Further standardisation and introduction of uniform references is warranted for routine clinical implementation.
PURPOSE: Myocardial feature-tracking (FT) deformation imaging is superior for risk stratification compared with volumetric approaches. Because there is no clear recommendation regarding FT postprocessing, we compared different FT-strain analyses with reference standard techniques, including tagging and strain-encoded (SENC) MRI. METHODS: Feature-tracking software from four different vendors (TomTec, Medis, Circle [CVI], and Neosoft), tagging (Segment), and fastSENC (MyoStrain) were used to determine left ventricular global circumferential strains (GCS) and longitudinal strains (GLS) in 12 healthy volunteers and 12 patients with heart failure. Variability and agreements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients for absolute agreement (ICCa) and consistency (ICCc) as well as Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: For FT-GCS, consistency was excellent comparing different FT vendors (ICCc = 0.84-0.97, r = 0.86-0.95) and in comparison to fast SENC (ICCc = 0.78-0.89, r = 0.73-0.81). FT-GCS consistency was excellent compared with tagging (ICCc = 0.79-0.85, r = 0.74-0.77) except for TomTec (ICCc = 0.68, r = 0.72). Absolute FT-GCS agreements among FT vendors were highest for CVI and Medis (ICCa = 0.96) and lowest for TomTec and Neosoft (ICCa = 0.32). Similarly, absolute FT-GCS agreements were excellent for CVI and Medis compared with both tagging and fast SENC (ICCa = 0.84-0.88), good to excellent for Neosoft (ICCa = 0.77 and 0.64), and lowest for TomTec (ICCa = 0.41 and 0.47). For FT-GLS, consistency was excellent (ICCc ≥ 0.86, r ≥ 0.76). Absolute agreements among FT vendors were excellent (ICCa = 0.91-0.93) or good to excellent for TomTec (ICCa = 0.69-0.85). Absolute agreements (ICCa) were good (CVI 0.70, Medis 0.60) and fair (TomTec 0.41, Neosoft 0.59) compared with tagging, but excellent compared with fast SENC (ICCa = 0.77-0.90). CONCLUSION: Although absolute agreements differ depending on deformation assessment approaches, consistency and correlation are consistently high regardless of the method chosen, thus indicating reliable strain assessment. Further standardisation and introduction of uniform references is warranted for routine clinical implementation.
Authors: Sören J Backhaus; Simon F Rösel; Thomas Stiermaier; Jonas Schmidt-Rimpler; Ruben Evertz; Alexander Schulz; Torben Lange; Johannes T Kowallick; Shelby Kutty; Boris Bigalke; Matthias Gutberlet; Gerd Hasenfuß; Holger Thiele; Ingo Eitel; Andreas Schuster Journal: Eur Heart J Open Date: 2022-08-12
Authors: Sebastian Kelle; Andreas Schuster; Sören J Backhaus; Georg Metschies; Marcus Billing; Jonas Schmidt-Rimpler; Johannes T Kowallick; Roman J Gertz; Tomas Lapinskas; Elisabeth Pieske-Kraigher; Burkert Pieske; Joachim Lotz; Boris Bigalke; Shelby Kutty; Gerd Hasenfuß Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Andreas Ochs; Johannes Riffel; Marco M Ochs; Nisha Arenja; Thomas Fritz; Christian Galuschky; Andreas Schuster; Oliver Bruder; Heiko Mahrholdt; Evangelos Giannitsis; Norbert Frey; Hugo A Katus; Sebastian J Buss; Florian André Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Torben Lange; Sören J Backhaus; Bo Eric Beuthner; Rodi Topci; Karl-Rudolf Rigorth; Johannes T Kowallick; Ruben Evertz; Moritz Schnelle; Susana Ravassa; Javier Díez; Karl Toischer; Tim Seidler; Miriam Puls; Gerd Hasenfuß; Andreas Schuster Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 6.903
Authors: Sören J Backhaus; Andreas Schuster; Sebastian Kelle; Johannes T Kowallick; Torben Lange; Christian Stehning; Marcus Billing; Joachim Lotz; Burkert Pieske; Gerd Hasenfuß Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 4.379