Cardiology

Inter-study repeatability of circumferential strain and diastolic strain rate by CMR tagging, feature tracking and tissue tracking in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.




Icon for Springer Icon for PubMed Central Related Articles

Inter-study repeatability of circumferential strain and diastolic strain rate by CMR tagging, feature tracking and tissue tracking in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Jun;36(6):1133-1146

Authors: Nazir SA, Shetye AM, Khan JN, Singh A, Arnold JR, Squire I, McCann GP

Abstract
Strain assessment allows accurate evaluation of myocardial function and mechanics in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Strain using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has traditionally been assessed with tagging but limitations of this technique have led to more widespread use of alternative methods, which may be more robust. We compared the inter-study repeatability of circumferential global peak-systolic strain (Ecc) and peak-early diastolic strain rate (PEDSR) derived by tagging with values obtained using novel cine-based software: Feature Tracking (FT) (TomTec, Germany) and Tissue Tracking (TT) (Circle cvi42, Canada) in patients following STEMI. Twenty male patients (mean age 56 ± 10 years, mean infarct size 13.7 ± 7.1% of left ventricular mass) were randomised to undergo CMR 1-5 days post-STEMI at 1.5 T or 3.0 T, repeated after ten minutes at the same field strength. Ecc and PEDSR were assessed using tagging, FT and TT. Inter-study repeatability was evaluated using Bland-Altman analyses, coefficients of variation (CoV) and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Ecc (%) was significantly lower with tagging than with FT or TT at 1.5 T (- 9.5 ± 3.3 vs. - 17.5 ± 3.8 vs. -15.5 ± 5.2, respectively, p < 0.001) and 3.0 T (- 13.1 ± 1.8 vs. - 19.4 ± 2.9 vs. - 17.3 ± 2.1, respectively, p = 0.001). This was similar for PEDSR (.s-1): 1.5 T (0.6 ± 0.2 vs. 1.5 ± 0.4 vs. 1.0 ± 0.4, for tagging, FT and TT respectively, p < 0.001) and 3.0 T (0.6 ± 0.2 vs. 1.5 ± 0.3 vs. 0.9 ± 0.3, respectively, p < 0.001). Inter-study repeatability for Ecc at 1.5 T was good for tagging and excellent for FT and TT: CoV 16.7%, 6.38%, and 8.65%, respectively. Repeatability for Ecc at 3.0 T was good for all three techniques: CoV 14.4%, 11.2%, and 13.0%, respectively. However, repeatability of PEDSR was generally lower than that for Ecc at 1.5 T (CoV 15.1%, 13.1%, and 34.0% for tagging, FT and TT, respectively) and 3.0 T (CoV 23.0%, 18.6%, and 26.2%, respectively). Following STEMI, Ecc and PEDSR are higher when measured with FT and TT than with tagging. Inter-study repeatability of Ecc is good for tagging, excellent for FT and TT at 1.5 T, and good for all three methods at 3.0 T. The repeatability of PEDSR is good to moderate at 1.5 T and moderate at 3.0 T. Cine-based methods to assess Ecc following STEMI may be preferable to tagging.

PMID: 32152811 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Source link







Related posts

Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects of S086, a novel angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor.

Newsemia

Rivaroxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and a Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve.

Newsemia

Top 12 healthful fruits

Newsemia

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy