These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Myocardial strain analysis of the right ventricle: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance and echocardiographic techniques.
    Author: Erley J, Tanacli R, Genovese D, Tapaskar N, Rashedi N, Bucius P, Kawaji K, Karagodin I, Lang RM, Kelle S, Mor-Avi V, Patel AR.
    Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson; 2020 Jul 23; 22(1):51. PubMed ID: 32698811.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Right ventricular (RV) strain is a useful predictor of prognosis in various cardiovascular diseases, including those traditionally believed to impact only the left ventricle. We aimed to determine inter-modality and inter-technique agreement in RV longitudinal strain (LS) measurements between currently available cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and echocardiographic techniques, as well as their reproducibility and the impact of layer-specific strain measurements. METHODS: RV-LS was determined in 62 patients using 2D speckle tracking echocardiography (STE, Epsilon) and two CMR techniques: feature tracking (FT) and strain-encoding (SENC), and in 17 healthy subjects using FT and SENC only. Measurements included global and free-wall LS (GLS, FWLS). Inter-technique agreement was assessed using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Reproducibility was quantified using intraclass correlation (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CoV). RESULTS: We found similar moderate agreement between both CMR techniques and STE in patients: r = 0.57-0.63 for SENC; r = 0.50-0.62 for FT. The correlation between SENC and STE was better for GLS (r = 0.63) than for FWLS (r = 0.57). Conversely, the correlation between FT and STE was higher for FWLS (r = 0.60-0.62) than GLS (r = 0.50-0.54). FT-midmyocardial strain correlated better with SENC and STE than FT-subendocardial strain. The agreement between SENC and FT was fair (r = 0.36-0.41, bias: - 6.4 to - 10.4%) in the entire study group. All techniques except FT showed excellent reproducibility (ICC: 0.62-0.96, CoV: 0.04-0.30). CONCLUSIONS: We found only moderate inter-modality agreement with STE in RV-LS for both FT and SENC and poor agreement when comparing between the CMR techniques. Different modalities and techniques should not be used interchangeably to determine and monitor RV strain.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]