Scholarlink

Background <p>Myocardial strain measurements are increasingly used in research and clinical practice. However, there are limited data on inter-modality agreement and reproducibility. We aimed to investigate the inter-technique agreement of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging derived left atrial (LA) and left ventricular (LV) deformation parameters.</p> Methods <p>Subjects with or without cardiovascular disease were prospectively recruited and had TTE and CMR on the same day. Ten subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) had both scans repeated within two weeks for test-retest reproducibility assessment. Myocardial deformation analyses were undertaken including LA strain (LAS) corresponding to LA reservoir, conduit and booster pump phases, LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) and peak early/late diastolic strain rate (PE/PLDSR) and LV mid-circumferential strain (Mid-CS) and strain rates.</p> Results <p>222 participants (T2D (<i>n</i> = 87); severe aortic stenosis (<i>n</i> = 78) and healthy volunteers (<i>n</i> = 57)) were included. There were no significant differences between TTE and CMR measured LAS parameters, with moderate agreement between imaging modalities (ICC = 0.55–0.69). LV parameters were significantly higher on CMR except for Mid-CS which was higher on TTE (-19.3 ± 3.19 vs. -23.0 ± 4.37; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Inter-technique agreement was poor for all LV deformation parameters, except PLDSR with modest agreement (ICC = 0.52–0.66). CMR test-retest reproducibility was good to excellent for LAS and LV strain rate parameters (ICC = 0.73–0.90). TTE test-retest reproducibility was good for conduit LAS and LV_PEDSR (ICC = 0.80).</p> Conclusion <p>There is modest agreement between TTE and CMR for LAS and poor agreement for LV strain assessment, suggesting that these techniques cannot be used inter-changeably. In a small subset of participants CMR test-retest reproducibility was overall better than TTE.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Inter-technique agreement of left atrial and ventricular deformation analysis: a comparison between transthoracic echocardiography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月6日

查看全文
  • Aseel Alfuhied,
  • Jian L. Yeo,
  • Gaurav S. Gulsin,
  • Abhishek Dattani,
  • Kelly Parke,
  • Christopher D. Steadman,
  • Manjit Sian,
  • Anna-Marie Marsh,
  • Gerry P. McCann,
  • Anvesha Singh

摘要

Background

Myocardial strain measurements are increasingly used in research and clinical practice. However, there are limited data on inter-modality agreement and reproducibility. We aimed to investigate the inter-technique agreement of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging derived left atrial (LA) and left ventricular (LV) deformation parameters.

Methods

Subjects with or without cardiovascular disease were prospectively recruited and had TTE and CMR on the same day. Ten subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) had both scans repeated within two weeks for test-retest reproducibility assessment. Myocardial deformation analyses were undertaken including LA strain (LAS) corresponding to LA reservoir, conduit and booster pump phases, LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) and peak early/late diastolic strain rate (PE/PLDSR) and LV mid-circumferential strain (Mid-CS) and strain rates.

Results

222 participants (T2D (n = 87); severe aortic stenosis (n = 78) and healthy volunteers (n = 57)) were included. There were no significant differences between TTE and CMR measured LAS parameters, with moderate agreement between imaging modalities (ICC = 0.55–0.69). LV parameters were significantly higher on CMR except for Mid-CS which was higher on TTE (-19.3 ± 3.19 vs. -23.0 ± 4.37; p < 0.001). Inter-technique agreement was poor for all LV deformation parameters, except PLDSR with modest agreement (ICC = 0.52–0.66). CMR test-retest reproducibility was good to excellent for LAS and LV strain rate parameters (ICC = 0.73–0.90). TTE test-retest reproducibility was good for conduit LAS and LV_PEDSR (ICC = 0.80).

Conclusion

There is modest agreement between TTE and CMR for LAS and poor agreement for LV strain assessment, suggesting that these techniques cannot be used inter-changeably. In a small subset of participants CMR test-retest reproducibility was overall better than TTE.