Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Backhaus, Sören J.
• Metschies, Georg
• Zieschang, Victoria
• Erley, Jennifer
• Mahsa Zamani, Seyedeh
• Kowallick, Johannes T.
• Lapinskas, Tomas
• Pieske, Burkert
• Lotz, Joachim
• Kutty, Shelby
• Hasenfuß, Gerd
• Kelle, Sebastian
• Schuster, Andreas

Titel

Head‐to‐head comparison of cardiovascular MR feature tracking cine versus acquisition‐based deformation strain imaging using myocardial tagging and strain encoding

Ist Teil von

• Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2021-01, Vol.85 (1), p.357-368

Ort / Verlag

United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2021

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Wiley Blackwell Single Titles

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Purpose Myocardial feature‐tracking (FT) deformation imaging is superior for risk stratification compared with volumetric approaches. Because there is no clear recommendation regarding FT postprocessing, we compared different FT‐strain analyses with reference standard techniques, including tagging and strain‐encoded (SENC) MRI. Methods Feature‐tracking software from four different vendors (TomTec, Medis, Circle [CVI], and Neosoft), tagging (Segment), and fastSENC (MyoStrain) were used to determine left ventricular global circumferential strains (GCS) and longitudinal strains (GLS) in 12 healthy volunteers and 12 patients with heart failure. Variability and agreements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients for absolute agreement (ICCa) and consistency (ICCc) as well as Pearson correlation coefficients. Results For FT‐GCS, consistency was excellent comparing different FT vendors (ICCc = 0.84‐0.97, r = 0.86‐0.95) and in comparison to fast SENC (ICCc = 0.78‐0.89, r = 0.73‐0.81). FT‐GCS consistency was excellent compared with tagging (ICCc = 0.79‐0.85, r = 0.74‐0.77) except for TomTec (ICCc = 0.68, r = 0.72). Absolute FT‐GCS agreements among FT vendors were highest for CVI and Medis (ICCa = 0.96) and lowest for TomTec and Neosoft (ICCa = 0.32). Similarly, absolute FT‐GCS agreements were excellent for CVI and Medis compared with both tagging and fast SENC (ICCa = 0.84‐0.88), good to excellent for Neosoft (ICCa = 0.77 and 0.64), and lowest for TomTec (ICCa = 0.41 and 0.47). For FT‐GLS, consistency was excellent (ICCc ≥ 0.86, r ≥ 0.76). Absolute agreements among FT vendors were excellent (ICCa = 0.91‐0.93) or good to excellent for TomTec (ICCa = 0.69‐0.85). Absolute agreements (ICCa) were good (CVI 0.70, Medis 0.60) and fair (TomTec 0.41, Neosoft 0.59) compared with tagging, but excellent compared with fast SENC (ICCa = 0.77‐0.90). Conclusion Although absolute agreements differ depending on deformation assessment approaches, consistency and correlation are consistently high regardless of the method chosen, thus indicating reliable strain assessment. Further standardisation and introduction of uniform references is warranted for routine clinical implementation.