Quantification of left ventricular myocardial strain: Comparison between MRI tagging, MRI feature tracking, and ultrasound speckle tracking

Author:

Brandt Yentl12,Lubrecht Jolijn M.23,Adriaans Bouke P.124,Aben Jean‐Paul5,Gerretsen Suzanne C.1,Ghossein‐Doha Chahinda4,Spaanderman Marc E. A.67,Prinzen Frits W.23,Kooi M. Eline12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Maastricht University Medical Centre Maastricht The Netherlands

2. Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM) Maastricht University Maastricht The Netherlands

3. Department of Physiology Maastricht University Maastricht The Netherlands

4. Department of Cardiology Maastricht University Medical Centre Maastricht The Netherlands

5. Department of Research and Development Pie Medical Imaging B.V. Maastricht The Netherlands

6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Maastricht University Medical Centre Maastricht The Netherlands

7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen The Netherlands

Abstract

AbstractUltrasound speckle tracking is frequently used to quantify myocardial strain, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) feature tracking is rapidly gaining interest. Our aim is to validate cardiac MRI feature tracking by comparing it with the gold standard method (i.e., MRI tagging) in healthy subjects and patients. Furthermore, we aim to perform an indirect validation by comparing ultrasound speckle tracking with MRI feature tracking. Forty‐two subjects (17 formerly preeclamptic women, three healthy women, and 22 left bundle branch block patients of both sexes) received 3‐T cardiac MRI and echocardiography. Cine and tagged MRI, and B‐mode ultrasound images, were acquired. Intrapatient global and segmental left ventricular circumferential (MRI tagging vs. MRI feature tracking) and longitudinal (MRI feature tracking vs. ultrasound speckle tracking) peak strain and time to peak strain were compared between the three techniques. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (< 0.50 = poor, 0.50–0.75 = moderate, > 0.75–0.90 = good, > 0.90 = excellent) and Bland–Altman analysis were used to assess correlation and bias; p less than 0.05 indicates a significant ICC or bias. Global peak strain parameters showed moderate‐to‐good correlations between methods (ICC = 0.71–0.83, p < 0.01) with no significant biases. Global time to peak strain parameters showed moderate‐to‐good correlations (ICC = 0.56–0.82, p < 0.01) with no significant biases. Segmental peak strains showed significant biases in all parameters and moderate‐to‐good correlation (ICC = 0.62–0.77, p < 0.01), except for lateral longitudinal peak strain (ICC = 0.23, p = 0.22). Segmental time to peak strain parameters showed moderate‐to‐good correlation (ICC = 0.58–0.74, p < 0.01) with no significant biases. MRI feature tracking is a valid method to examine myocardial strain, but there is bias in absolute segmental strain values between imaging techniques. MRI feature tracking shows adequate comparability with ultrasound speckle tracking.

Publisher

Wiley

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3