Sebastian Kelle1,2, Andreas Schuster3,4, Sören J Backhaus5,6, Georg Metschies5,6, Marcus Billing5,6, Jonas Schmidt-Rimpler5,6, Johannes T Kowallick6,7, Roman J Gertz5,6, Tomas Lapinskas1,2,8, Elisabeth Pieske-Kraigher1, Burkert Pieske1, Joachim Lotz6,7, Boris Bigalke9, Shelby Kutty10, Gerd Hasenfuß5,6. 1. German Heart Center Berlin (DHZB), Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, University of Berlin, Charité Campus Virchow Clinic, Berlin, Germany. 2. DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), Partner Site, Berlin, Germany. 3. Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37099, Göttingen, Germany. andreas_schuster@gmx.net. 4. German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. andreas_schuster@gmx.net. 5. Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37099, Göttingen, Germany. 6. German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. 7. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University, Göttingen, Germany. 8. Department of Cardiology, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania. 9. Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, Charité Campus Benjamin Franklin, University Medical Center Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 10. Taussig Heart Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myocardial deformation analyses using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) feature tracking (CMR-FT) have incremental value in the assessment of cardiac function beyond volumetric analyses. Since guidelines do not recommend specific imaging parameters, we aimed to define optimal spatial and temporal resolutions for CMR cine images to enable reliable post-processing. METHODS: Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility was assessed in 12 healthy subjects and 9 heart failure (HF) patients. Cine images were acquired with different temporal (20, 30, 40 and 50 frames/cardiac cycle) and spatial resolutions (high in-plane 1.5 × 1.5 mm through-plane 5 mm, standard 1.8 × 1.8 x 8mm and low 3.0 × 3.0 x 10mm). CMR-FT comprised left ventricular (LV) global and segmental longitudinal/circumferential strain (GLS/GCS) and associated systolic strain rates (SR), and right ventricular (RV) GLS. RESULTS: Temporal but not spatial resolution did impact absolute strain and SR. Maximum absolute changes between lowest and highest temporal resolution were as follows: 1.8% and 0.3%/s for LV GLS and SR, 2.5% and 0.6%/s for GCS and SR as well as 1.4% for RV GLS. Changes of strain values occurred comparing 20 and 30 frames/cardiac cycle including LV and RV GLS and GCS (p < 0.001-0.046). In contrast, SR values (LV GLS/GCS SR) changed significantly comparing all successive temporal resolutions (p < 0.001-0.013). LV strain and SR reproducibility was not affected by either temporal or spatial resolution, whilst RV strain variability decreased with augmentation of temporal resolution. CONCLUSION: Temporal but not spatial resolution significantly affects strain and SR in CMR-FT deformation analyses. Strain analyses require lower temporal resolution and 30 frames/cardiac cycle offer consistent strain assessments, whilst SR measurements gain from further increases in temporal resolution.
BACKGROUND: Myocardial deformation analyses using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) feature tracking (CMR-FT) have incremental value in the assessment of cardiac function beyond volumetric analyses. Since guidelines do not recommend specific imaging parameters, we aimed to define optimal spatial and temporal resolutions for CMR cine images to enable reliable post-processing. METHODS: Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility was assessed in 12 healthy subjects and 9 heart failure (HF) patients. Cine images were acquired with different temporal (20, 30, 40 and 50 frames/cardiac cycle) and spatial resolutions (high in-plane 1.5 × 1.5 mm through-plane 5 mm, standard 1.8 × 1.8 x 8mm and low 3.0 × 3.0 x 10mm). CMR-FT comprised left ventricular (LV) global and segmental longitudinal/circumferential strain (GLS/GCS) and associated systolic strain rates (SR), and right ventricular (RV) GLS. RESULTS: Temporal but not spatial resolution did impact absolute strain and SR. Maximum absolute changes between lowest and highest temporal resolution were as follows: 1.8% and 0.3%/s for LV GLS and SR, 2.5% and 0.6%/s for GCS and SR as well as 1.4% for RV GLS. Changes of strain values occurred comparing 20 and 30 frames/cardiac cycle including LV and RV GLS and GCS (p < 0.001-0.046). In contrast, SR values (LV GLS/GCS SR) changed significantly comparing all successive temporal resolutions (p < 0.001-0.013). LV strain and SR reproducibility was not affected by either temporal or spatial resolution, whilst RV strain variability decreased with augmentation of temporal resolution. CONCLUSION: Temporal but not spatial resolution significantly affects strain and SR in CMR-FT deformation analyses. Strain analyses require lower temporal resolution and 30 frames/cardiac cycle offer consistent strain assessments, whilst SR measurements gain from further increases in temporal resolution.
Authors: Raksha Indorkar; Raymond Y Kwong; Simone Romano; Brent E White; Richard C Chia; Michael Trybula; Kaleigh Evans; Chetan Shenoy; Afshin Farzaneh-Far Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-11-05
Authors: Sherif F Nagueh; Otto A Smiseth; Christopher P Appleton; Benjamin F Byrd; Hisham Dokainish; Thor Edvardsen; Frank A Flachskampf; Thierry C Gillebert; Allan L Klein; Patrizio Lancellotti; Paolo Marino; Jae K Oh; Bogdan Alexandru Popescu; Alan D Waggoner Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 6.875
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: Cesare Russo; Zhezhen Jin; Mitchell S V Elkind; Tatjana Rundek; Shunichi Homma; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Lill Bergenzaun; Hans Ohlin; Petri Gudmundsson; Ronnie Willenheimer; Michelle S Chew Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 2.062
Authors: Hannah Sjögren; Ulrika Pahlm; Henrik Engblom; David Erlinge; Einar Heiberg; Håkan Arheden; Marcus Carlsson; Ellen Ostenfeld Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-09-05 Impact factor: 2.357