Carolin Lim1,2, Edyta Blaszczyk1,2, Leili Riazy1,2,3, Stephanie Wiesemann1,2, Johannes Schüler1, Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff1,2,4, Jeanette Schulz-Menger5,6. 1. Working Group on Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Experimental and Clinical Research Center, a Joint Cooperation Between the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology and the Max-Delbrueck Center for Molecular Medicine, and HELIOS Klinikum Berlin Buch, Department of Cardiology and Nephrology, Berlin, Germany. 2. DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site, Berlin, Germany. 3. Berlin Ultrahigh Field Facility at the Max-Delbrueck Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Cardiology, Clinic Agatharied, Ludwig-Maximilians - University München, Hausham, Germany. 5. Working Group on Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Experimental and Clinical Research Center, a Joint Cooperation Between the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology and the Max-Delbrueck Center for Molecular Medicine, and HELIOS Klinikum Berlin Buch, Department of Cardiology and Nephrology, Berlin, Germany. Jeanette.schulz-menger@charite.de. 6. DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site, Berlin, Germany. Jeanette.schulz-menger@charite.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Quantification of myocardial deformation by feature tracking is of growing interest in cardiovascular magnetic resonance. It allows the assessment of regional myocardial function based on cine images. However, image acquisition, post-processing, and interpretation are not standardized. We aimed to assess the influence of segmentation procedure such as slice selection and different types of analysis software on values and quantification of myocardial strain in healthy adults. METHODS: Healthy volunteers were retrospectively analyzed. Post-processing was performed using CVI42 and TomTec. Longitudinal and radialLong axis (LAX) strain were quantified using 4-chamber-view, 3-chamber-view, and 2-chamber-view. Circumferential and radialShort axis (SAX) strain were assessed in basal, midventricular, and apical short-axis views and using full coverage. Global and segmental strain values were compared to each other regarding their post-processing approach and analysis software package. RESULTS: We screened healthy volunteers studied at 1.5 or 3.0 T and included 67 (age 44.3 ± 16.3 years, 31 females). Circumferential and radialSAX strain values were different between a full coverage approach vs. three short slices (- 17.6 ± 1.8% vs. - 19.2 ± 2.3% and 29.1 ± 4.8% vs. 34.6 ± 7.1%). Different analysis software calculated significantly different strain values. Within the same vendor, different field strengths (- 17.0 ± 2.1% at 1.5 T vs. - 17.0 ± 1.7% at 3 T, p = 0.845) did not influence the calculated global longitudinal strain (GLS), and were similar in gender (- 17.4 ± 2.0% in females vs. - 16.6 ± 1.8% in males, p = 0.098). Circumferential and radial strain were different in females and males (circumferential strain - 18.2 ± 1.7% vs. - 17.1 ± 1.8%, p = 0.029 and radial strain 30.7 ± 4.7% vs. 27.8 ± 4.6%, p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial deformation assessed by feature tracking depends on segmentation procedure and type of analysis software. CircumferentialSAX and radialSAX depend on the number of slices used for feature tracking analysis. As known from other imaging modalities, GLS seems to be the most stable parameter. During follow-up studies, standardized conditions should be warranted. Trial registration Retrospectively registered KEY POINTS: • Myocardial deformation assessed by feature tracking depends on the segmentation procedure. • Global myocardial strain values differ significantly among vendors. • Standardization in post-processing using CMR feature tracking is essential.
OBJECTIVES: Quantification of myocardial deformation by feature tracking is of growing interest in cardiovascular magnetic resonance. It allows the assessment of regional myocardial function based on cine images. However, image acquisition, post-processing, and interpretation are not standardized. We aimed to assess the influence of segmentation procedure such as slice selection and different types of analysis software on values and quantification of myocardial strain in healthy adults. METHODS: Healthy volunteers were retrospectively analyzed. Post-processing was performed using CVI42 and TomTec. Longitudinal and radialLong axis (LAX) strain were quantified using 4-chamber-view, 3-chamber-view, and 2-chamber-view. Circumferential and radialShort axis (SAX) strain were assessed in basal, midventricular, and apical short-axis views and using full coverage. Global and segmental strain values were compared to each other regarding their post-processing approach and analysis software package. RESULTS: We screened healthy volunteers studied at 1.5 or 3.0 T and included 67 (age 44.3 ± 16.3 years, 31 females). Circumferential and radialSAX strain values were different between a full coverage approach vs. three short slices (- 17.6 ± 1.8% vs. - 19.2 ± 2.3% and 29.1 ± 4.8% vs. 34.6 ± 7.1%). Different analysis software calculated significantly different strain values. Within the same vendor, different field strengths (- 17.0 ± 2.1% at 1.5 T vs. - 17.0 ± 1.7% at 3 T, p = 0.845) did not influence the calculated global longitudinal strain (GLS), and were similar in gender (- 17.4 ± 2.0% in females vs. - 16.6 ± 1.8% in males, p = 0.098). Circumferential and radial strain were different in females and males (circumferential strain - 18.2 ± 1.7% vs. - 17.1 ± 1.8%, p = 0.029 and radial strain 30.7 ± 4.7% vs. 27.8 ± 4.6%, p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS:Myocardial deformation assessed by feature tracking depends on segmentation procedure and type of analysis software. CircumferentialSAX and radialSAX depend on the number of slices used for feature tracking analysis. As known from other imaging modalities, GLS seems to be the most stable parameter. During follow-up studies, standardized conditions should be warranted. Trial registration Retrospectively registered KEY POINTS: • Myocardial deformation assessed by feature tracking depends on the segmentation procedure. • Global myocardial strain values differ significantly among vendors. • Standardization in post-processing using CMR feature tracking is essential.
Entities:
Keywords:
Healthy volunteers; Left ventricular function; Magnetic resonance imaging; Myocard; Software
Authors: Victor Mor-Avi; Roberto M Lang; Luigi P Badano; Marek Belohlavek; Nuno Miguel Cardim; Genevieve Derumeaux; Maurizio Galderisi; Thomas Marwick; Sherif F Nagueh; Partho P Sengupta; Rosa Sicari; Otto A Smiseth; Beverly Smulevitz; Masaaki Takeuchi; James D Thomas; Mani Vannan; Jens-Uwe Voigt; Jose Luis Zamorano Journal: Eur J Echocardiogr Date: 2011-03
Authors: Juan Carlos Plana; Maurizio Galderisi; Ana Barac; Michael S Ewer; Bonnie Ky; Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie; Javier Ganame; Igal A Sebag; Deborah A Agler; Luigi P Badano; Jose Banchs; Daniela Cardinale; Joseph Carver; Manuel Cerqueira; Jeanne M DeCara; Thor Edvardsen; Scott D Flamm; Thomas Force; Brian P Griffin; Guy Jerusalem; Jennifer E Liu; Andreia Magalhães; Thomas Marwick; Liza Y Sanchez; Rosa Sicari; Hector R Villarraga; Patrizio Lancellotti Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Jelena Čelutkienė; Carla M Plymen; Frank A Flachskampf; Rudolf A de Boer; Julia Grapsa; Robert Manka; Lisa Anderson; Madalina Garbi; Vassilis Barberis; Pasquale Perrone Filardi; Paola Gargiulo; Jose Luis Zamorano; Mitja Lainscak; Petar Seferovic; Frank Ruschitzka; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Petros Nihoyannopoulos Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Kenneth Mangion; David Carrick; Jaclyn Carberry; Ahmed Mahrous; Christie McComb; Keith G Oldroyd; Hany Eteiba; Mitchell Lindsay; Margaret McEntegart; Stuart Hood; Mark C Petrie; Stuart Watkins; Andrew Davie; Xiaodong Zhong; Frederick H Epstein; Caroline E Haig; Colin Berry Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sebastian J Buss; Mostafa Emami; Derliz Mereles; Grigorios Korosoglou; Arnt V Kristen; Andreas Voss; Dieter Schellberg; Christian Zugck; Christian Galuschky; Evangelos Giannitsis; Ute Hegenbart; Anthony D Ho; Hugo A Katus; Stefan O Schonland; Stefan E Hardt Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Elisabeth Kraigher-Krainer; Amil M Shah; Deepak K Gupta; Angela Santos; Brian Claggett; Burkert Pieske; Michael R Zile; Adriaan A Voors; Marty P Lefkowitz; Milton Packer; John J V McMurray; Scott D Solomon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jeffery E Illman; Shivaram P Arunachalam; Arvin Arani; Ian Cheng-Yi Chang; James F Glockner; Angela Dispenzieri; Martha Grogan; Philip A Araoz Journal: Amyloid Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 7.141
Authors: Eva Maret; Tim Todt; Lars Brudin; Eva Nylander; Eva Swahn; Jan L Ohlsson; Jan E Engvall Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2009-11-16 Impact factor: 2.062
Authors: Maxim Avanesov; Monica Patten; Ersin Cavus; Kai Muellerleile; Samuel Schellert; Jan Schneider; Enver Tahir; Celeste Chevalier; Charlotte Jahnke; Ulf K Radunski; Gerhard Adam; Paulus Kirchhof; Stefan Blankenberg; Gunnar K Lund Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Manuel A Morales; Maaike van den Boomen; Christopher Nguyen; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Bruce R Rosen; Collin M Stultz; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Ciprian Catana Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-09-03
Authors: Daniel A Auger; Sona Ghadimi; Xiaoying Cai; Claire E Reagan; Changyu Sun; Mohamad Abdi; Jie Jane Cao; Joshua Y Cheng; Nora Ngai; Andrew D Scott; Pedro F Ferreira; John N Oshinski; Nick Emamifar; Daniel B Ennis; Michael Loecher; Zhan-Qiu Liu; Pierre Croisille; Magalie Viallon; Kenneth C Bilchick; Frederick H Epstein Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2022-04-04 Impact factor: 6.903
Authors: Manuel A Morales; Gert J H Snel; Maaike van den Boomen; Ronald J H Borra; Vincent M van Deursen; Riemer H J A Slart; David Izquierdo-Garcia; Niek H J Prakken; Ciprian Catana Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-04-11
Authors: Jan Gröschel; Yashraj Bhoyroo; Edyta Blaszczyk; Ralf Felix Trauzeddel; Darian Viezzer; Hadil Saad; Maximilian Fenski; Jeanette Schulz-Menger Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-07-14
Authors: Stefan Frantz; Moritz Jens Hundertmark; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Frank Michael Bengel; Johann Bauersachs Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 35.855