Advertisement

Left ventricular global longitudinal strain calculated from manually traced endocardial border lengths utilizing the images for routine ejection fraction measurement by biplane method of disks

  • Kazunori OkadaEmail author
  • Sanae Kaga
  • Minami Araki
  • Kosuke Tsujita
  • Ayaka Yoshikawa
  • Mizuki Hara
  • Yoichi Sakamoto
  • Nobuo Masauzi
  • Taisei Mikami
Original Article—Cardiology
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to test whether the fractional change in the endocardial border length between end-diastole and end-systole as manually traced in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measurement using the biplane method of disks (MOD) was consistent with the global longitudinal strain derived from speckle-tracking echocardiography.

Methods

For 105 patients who underwent echocardiography, two- and four-chamber images with manually traced endocardial lines for LVEF measurement by MOD were stored. LV endocardial lengths at end-diastole and at end-systole were measured on both images to calculate the fractional length changes, which were averaged (GLSMOD). Speckle-tracking analysis was performed to measure global longitudinal strains in the apical two- and four-chamber and long-axis images, and the three values were averaged (GLSSTE) according to the ASE and EACVI guidelines.

Results

There was no significant difference between GLSMOD and GLSSTE. GLSMOD correlated well with GLSSTE (r = 0.81, p < 0.001), and there was no fixed bias in the Bland–Altman analysis. The intraclass correlations for the intra- and inter-observer comparisons for GLSSTE were excellent, and those for GLSMOD were adequate.

Conclusion

The fractional LV endocardial border length change, GLSMOD, showed sufficient agreement with GLSSTE to justify its use as a substitute for the STE-derived global longitudinal strain.

Keywords

Global longitudinal strain Speckle-tracking echocardiography Biplane method of disks Ejection fraction Left ventricular systolic function 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This study was financially supported by a grant-in-aid for scientific research from the Japanese Society of Sonographers (No. 2017-1). The authors declare no other conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved as a retrospective observational study by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Hokkaido University. Instead of obtaining informed consent, the objectives and methods of the present study were shared with the public through our institution’s website and a physical bulletin board; patients who did not wish to participate could request their data to be deleted from the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Bohs LN, Trahey GE. A novel method for angle independent ultrasonic imaging of blood flow and tissue motion. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1991;38:280–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leitman M, Lysyansky P, Sidenko S, et al. Two-dimensional strain: a novel software for real-time quantitative echocardiographic assessment of myocardial function. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2004;17:1021–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Langeland S, D’hooge J, Wouters PF, et al. Experimental validation of a new ultrasound method for the simultaneous assessment of radial and longitudinal myocardial deformation independent of insonation angle. Circulation. 2005;112:2157–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collier P, Phelan D, Klein A. A test in context: myocardial strain measured by speckle-tracking echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:1043–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28:1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klaeboe LG, Edvardsen T. Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular systolic function. J Echocardiogr. 2019;17:10–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Voigt JU, Pedrizzetti G, Lysyansky P, et al. 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. 2015;28:183–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tabata T, Grimm RA, Greenberg NL, et al. Assessment of LV systolic function in atrial fibrillation using an index of preceding cardiac cycles. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2001;281:H573–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalam K, Otahal P, Marwick TH. Prognostic implications of global LV dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of global longitudinal strain and ejection fraction. Heart. 2014;100:1673–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang H, Negishi K, Wang Y, et al. Echocardiographic screening for non-ischaemic stage B heart failure in the community. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18:1331–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fries B, Liu D, Gaudron P, et al. Role of global longitudinal strain in the prediction of outcome in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2017;120:640–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laufer-Perl M, Derakhshesh M, Milwidsky A, et al. Usefulness of global longitudinal strain for early identification of subclinical left ventricular dysfunction in patients with active cancer. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122:1784–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feigenbaum H, Mastouri R, Sawada S. A practical approach to using strain echocardiography to evaluate the left ventricle. Circ J. 2012;76:1550–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stanton T, Leano R, Marwick TH. Prediction of all-cause mortality from global longitudinal speckle strain comparison with ejection fraction and wall motion scoring. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:356–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kobayashi Y, Ariyama M, Kobayashi Y, et al. Comparison of left ventricular manual versus automated derived longitudinal strain: implications for clinical practice and research. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;32:429–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Medvedofsky D, Kebed K, Laffin L, et al. Reproducibility and experience dependence of echocardiographic indices of left ventricular function: side-by-side comparison of global longitudinal strain and ejection fraction. Echocardiography. 2017;34:365–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farsalinos KE, Daraban AM, Ünlü S, et al. Head-to-head comparison of global longitudinal strain measurements among nine different vendors: the EACVI/ASE inter-vendor comparison study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28:1171–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thavendiranathan P, Negishi T, Coté MA, et al. Single versus standard multiview assessment of global longitudinal strain for the diagnosis of cardiotoxicity during cancer therapy. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11:1109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health SciencesHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Health Sciences, School of MedicineHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  3. 3.Kitanodai ClinicMedical Corporation Hokuseki GroupKitahiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations