Key result
FT-CMR shows strong correlation and agreement with 2D-STE for measuring GLS in chronic ischemic heart disease.
Why the study?
To assess the relationships between left ventricular longitudinal strain measurements obtained by 2D-STE and FT-CMR in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease.
Do feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography agree in measuring left ventricular strain in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease?
Cross-Sectional (n=55)
No
Do feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography agree in measuring left ventricular strain in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease?
While FT-CMR and 2D-STE show strong correlation for measuring global longitudinal strain in ischemic heart disease, wide limits of agreement and segmental variability indicate the modalities are not fully interchangeable for individual patient follow-up.
FT-CMR and 2D-STE should not be used interchangeably for serial GLS assessment in chronic IHD; leaves open optimal modality choice for individual patients.
Background Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a valuable tool for assessing left ventricular (LV) systolic function, detecting subclinical dysfunction earlier than classic ejection fraction. Two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) is widely used due to its accessibility and high temporal resolution, whereas feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance (FT-CMR) offers superior spatial resolution and reproducibility. In this study, we assess the relationships between longitudinal strain measurements obtained by 2D-STE and FT-CMR in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease (IHD). Methods Fifty-five patients with IHD and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 49% underwent 2D-STE and FT-CMR at least 3 months after an acute coronary event. Global and segmental longitudinal strain for all 17 myocardial segments was measured using both modalities. Pearson correlation and Bland–Altman analysis were used to assess correlation and agreement, respectively. Results GLS showed a strong correlation between 2D-STE and FT-CMR (r = 0.793, P < 0.001), with a mean difference of 0.98% and limits of agreement from –3.2% to + 5.1%. Segmental strain demonstrated greater variability (r = 0.03 to 0.47), with the best agreement in mid and apical segments and greatest discrepancies at the basal level. Conclusions In patients with IHD and reduced LVEF, GLS obtained by FT-CMR and 2D-STE showed strong correlation and acceptable overall agreement. However, the relatively wide limits of agreement and variability in segmental strain, particularly in basal regions, indicate that the two methods are not fully interchangeable for individual assessment and follow-up. Both techniques reflect similar physiological trends but differ in absolute values, requiring caution in regional strain interpretation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khidr et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Chronic ischemic heart disease with reduced LVEF (n=55). Feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance (FT-CMR) vs. 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) was evaluated on Global longitudinal strain (GLS) correlation and agreement (r = 0.793, 95% CI -3.2 to 5.1, p=<0.001). Feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance demonstrated a strong correlation (r = 0.793) and acceptable overall agreement (mean bias 0.98%) with 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography for measuring global longitudinal strain in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: