Left ventricular global myocardial strain assessment: Are CMR feature-tracking algorithms useful in the clinical setting?

Objectives Myocardial strains can be calculated using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) feature-tracking (FT) algorithms. They show excellent intra- and inter-observer agreement but rather disappointing inter-vendor agreement. Currently, it is unknown how well CMR-FT-based strain values agree...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiologia medica Jg. 125; H. 5; S. 444 - 450
Hauptverfasser: Pierpaolo, Palumbo, Rolf, Symons, Manuel, Barreiro-Pérez, Davide, Curione, Dresselaers, Tom, Claus, Piet, Bogaert, Jan
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Milan Springer Milan 01.05.2020
Springer Nature B.V
Schlagworte:
ISSN:0033-8362, 1826-6983, 1826-6983
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives Myocardial strains can be calculated using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) feature-tracking (FT) algorithms. They show excellent intra- and inter-observer agreement but rather disappointing inter-vendor agreement. Currently, it is unknown how well CMR-FT-based strain values agree with manually obtained strain values. Methods In 45 subjects (15 controls, 15 acute myocardial infarction, 15 non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy), end-systolic manually derived strains were compared to four CMR-FT software packages. Global radial strain (GRS), global circumferential strain (GCS) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) were determined. Intra- and inter-observer agreement and agreement between manual and CMR-FT analysis were calculated. Statistical analysis included Bland–Altman plots, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). Results Manual contouring yielded excellent intra-observer (ICC 0.903 (GRS) to 0.995 (GCS)) and inter-observer agreement (ICC 0.915 (GRS) to 0.966 (GCS)) with CV ranging 4.7% (GCS) to 20.7% (GRS) and 12.7% (GCS) to 20.0% (GRS), for intra-observer and inter-observer agreement, respectively. Agreement between manual and CMR-FT strain values ranged from poor to excellent, with best agreement for GCS (ICC 0.857–0.935) and intermediate for GLS (ICC 0.591–0.914), while ICC values for GRS ranged widely (ICC 0.271–0.851). In particular, two software packages showed a strong trend toward systematic underestimation of myocardial strain in radial and longitudinal direction, correlating poorly to moderately with manual contouring, i.e., GRS (ICC 0.271, CV 25.2%) and GLS (ICC 0.591, CV 17.6%). Conclusion Some CMR-FT values agree poorly with manually derived strains, emphasizing to be cautious to use these software packages in the clinical setting. In particular, radial and longitudinal strain tends to be underestimated when using manually derived strains as reference.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0033-8362
1826-6983
1826-6983
DOI:10.1007/s11547-020-01159-1