Advertisement

Inter-vendor reproducibility and accuracy of segmental left ventricular strain measurements using CMR feature tracking

  • Monica DobrovieEmail author
  • Manuel Barreiro-Pérez
  • Davide Curione
  • Rolf Symons
  • Piet Claus
  • Jens-Uwe Voigt
  • Jan Bogaert
Cardiac
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Our aim was to evaluate the inter-vendor reproducibility of cardiovascular MR feature tracking (CMR-FT) for the measurement of segmental strain (SS) of the left ventricle (LV) as well as to test the accuracy of CMR-FT to detect regional myocardial pathology.

Methods

We selected 45 patients: 15 with normal CMR findings, 15 with dilated cardiomyopathy, and 15 with acute myocardial infarction. Segmental longitudinal, circumferential, and radial strains were assessed with 4 different software. The inter-vendor difference as well as intra- and inter-observer variability was investigated. Furthermore, the accuracy of CMR-FT for the detection of structural (infarcted segments) as well as functional pathology (septal vs. lateral wall strain in left bundle branch block) was tested.

Results

Between vendors, there were significant differences in values for all strains (p < 0.001). The software using a non-rigid algorithm for image registration and segmentation demonstrated the best intra- as well as inter-observer variability with interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.962 and coefficient of variation (CV) < 24%. For infarct location, the same software yielded the highest area under the curve values for radial and circumferential SS (0.872 and 0.859, respectively). One of the other three software using optical flow technology performed best for longitudinal SS (0.799) and showed the largest differences in SS between septum and lateral wall in the dilated cardiomyopathy group.

Conclusion

SS values obtained by CMR-FT are not interchangeable between vendors, and intra- and inter-observer reproducibility shows substantial variability among vendors. Overall, the different packages score relatively well to depict focal structural or functional LV pathology.

Key Points

Segmental myocardial strain values obtained by CMR feature tracking are not interchangeable between different vendors.

Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility shows substantial variability among vendors.

Segmental myocardial strains measured by CMR feature tracking score relatively well to depict focal structural or functional LV pathology.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Myocardium Myocardial infarction Dilated cardiomyopathy 

Abbreviations

CMR-FT

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking

CV

Coefficient of variation

ICC

Interclass correlation coefficient

LV

Left ventricle

SCS

Segmental circumferential strain

SLS

Segmental longitudinal strain

SRS

Segmental radial strain

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Professor Jan Bogaert.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Several authors have significant statistical expertise.

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because of its retrospective nature.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

The study subjects and cohorts have been previously reported in the paper published by our group: Barreiro-Pérez M, Curione D, Symons R, Claus P, Voigt JU, Bogaert J. Left ventricular global myocardial strain assessment comparing the reproducibility of four commercially available CMR-feature tracking algorithms. Eur Radiol. 2018 Jun 5. [Epub ahead of print] doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5538-4

Methodology

• retrospective

• cross-sectional study

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2019_6315_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Voigt JU, Pedrizzetti G, Lysyansky P et al (2015) Definitions for a common standard for 2D speckle tracking echocardiography: consensus document of the EACVI/ASE/Industry Task Force to standardize deformation imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 28(2):183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smiseth OA, Torp H, Opdahl A, Haugaa KH, Urheim S (2016) Myocardial strain imaging: how useful is it in clinical decision making? Eur Heart J 37(15):1196–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mignot A, Donal E, Zaroui A et al (2010) Global longitudinal strain as a major predictor of cardiac events in patients with depressed left ventricular function: a multicenter study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 23:1019–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stanton T, Leano R, Marwick TH (2009) Prediction of all-cause mortality from global longitudinal speckle strain: comparison with ejection fraction and wall motion scoring. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2:356–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kalam K, Otahal P, Marwick TH (2014) Prognostic implications of global LV dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of global longitudinal strain and ejection fraction. Heart 100(21):1673–1680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zamorano JL, Lancellotti P, Rodriguez Muñoz D et al (2016) 2016 ESC position paper on cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity developed under the auspices of the ESC Committee for practice guidelines: the task force for cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 37(36):2768–2801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luetkens JA, Schlesinger-Irsch U, Kuetting DL et al (2017) Feature-tracking myocardial strain analysis in acute myocarditis: diagnostic value and association with myocardial oedema. Eur Radiol 27(11):4661–4671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farsalinos KE, Daraban AM, Ünlü S, Thomas JD, Badano LP, Voigt JU (2015) Head-to-head comparison of global longitudinal strain measurements among nine different vendors: the EACVI/ASE inter-vendor comparison study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 28(10):1171–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nagata Y, Takeuchi M, Mizukoshi K et al (2015) Intervendor variability of two-dimensional strain using vendor-specific and vendor-independent software. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 28(6):630–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barreiro-Pérez M, Curione D, Symons R, Claus P, Voigt JU, Bogaert J (2018) Left ventricular global myocardial strain assessment comparing the reproducibility of four commercially available CMR-feature tracking algorithms. Eur Radiol 28(12):5137–5147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hor KN, Baumann R, Pedrizzetti G et al (2011) Magnetic resonance derived myocardial strain assessment using feature tracking. J Vis Exp 12(48)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schuster A, Hor KN, Kowallick JT, Beerbaum P, Kutty S (2016) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking. Concepts and clinical applications. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 9(4):e004077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schuster A, Stahnke VC, Unterberg-Buchwald C et al (2015) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature-tracking assessment of myocardial mechanics: intervendor agreement and considerations regarding reproducibility. Clin Radiol 70(9):989–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morais P, Marchi A, Bogaert JA et al (2017) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking using a non-rigid, elastic image registration algorithm. Assessment of variability in a real-life clinical setting. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 19(1):24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bourfiss M, Vigneault DM, Aliyari Ghasebeh MA et al (2017) Feature tracking CMR reveals abnormal strain in preclinical arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy: a multi-software feasibility and clinical implementation study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 19(1):66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V et al (2002) American Heart Association Writing Group on Myocardial Segmentation and Registration for Cardiac Imaging. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation 105(4):539–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kempny A, Fernández-Jiménez R, Orwat S et al (2012) Quantification of biventricular myocardial function using cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking, endocardial border delineation and echocardiographic speckle tracking in patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot and healthy controls. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 31(14):32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmidt B, Dick A, Treutlein M et al (2017) Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of global and regional magnetic resonance feature tracking derived strain parameters of the left and right ventricle. Eur J Radiol 89:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khan JN, Singh A, Nazir SA, Kanagala P, Gershlick AH, McCann GP (2015) Comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking and tagging for the assessment of left ventricular systolic strain in acute myocardial infarction. Eur J Radiol 84(5):840–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schneeweis C, Qiu J, Schnackenburg B et al (2014) Value of additional strain analysis with feature tracking in dobutamine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance for detecting coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 16:72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mirea O, Pagourelias ED, Duchenne J et al (2018) EACVI-ASE-industry standardization task force. Intervendor differences in the accuracy of detecting regional functional abnormalities: a report from the EACVI-ASE Strain Standardization Task Force. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 11(1):25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cvijic M, Duchenne J, Ünlü S et al (2018) Timing of myocardial shortening determines left ventricular regional myocardial work and regional remodelling in hearts with conduction delays. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 19(8):941–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Imaging and Pathology, University Hospitals LeuvenKU Leuven – University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Cardiovascular Disease Emergency Institute CC Iliescu BucharestBucharestRomania
  3. 3.Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca (IBSAL), Facultad de Medicina, y CIBERCVUniversidad de SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  4. 4.Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging Unit – Radiology and Bioimaging DepartmentBambino Gesù Children’s Hospital IRCCSRomeItaly
  5. 5.Laboratory on Cardiovascular Imaging & Dynamics, Department of Cardiovascular SciencesKU Leuven – University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  6. 6.Department of Cardiovascular SciencesKU Leuven – University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations