CMR feature tracking showed fair agreement with gold-standard CMR tagging for measuring mechanical discoordination (SSI ICC 0.58), suggesting it is a potential clinical alternative for evaluating CRT candidates.
Observational (n=27)
Yes
Does CMR feature tracking or speckle tracking echocardiography provide comparable strain and dyssynchrony measurements to CMR tagging in CRT candidates?
CMR feature tracking shows fair agreement with CMR tagging and may serve as a potential clinical alternative for detecting discoordination in CRT candidates, whereas speckle tracking echocardiography showed poorer agreement.
Effect estimate: ICC 0.58 (95% CI 0.00-0.83)
p-value: p=<0.001
Parameters using myocardial strain analysis may predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). As the agreement between currently available strain imaging modalities is unknown, three different modalities were compared. Twenty-seven CRT-candidates, prospectively included in the MARC study, underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and echocardiographic examination. Left ventricular (LV) circumferential strain was analysed with CMR tagging (CMR-TAG), CMR feature tracking (CMR-FT), and speckle tracking echocardiography (STE). Basic strain values and parameters of dyssynchrony and discoordination obtained with CMR-FT and STE were compared to CMR-TAG. Agreement of CMR-FT and CMR-TAG was overall fair, while agreement between STE and CMR-TAG was often poor. For both comparisons, agreement on discoordination parameters was highest, followed by dyssynchrony and basic strain parameters. For discoordination parameters, agreement on systolic stretch index was highest, with fair intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) (CMR-FT: 0.58, STE: 0.55). ICC of septal systolic rebound stretch (SRSsept) was poor (CMR-FT: 0.41, STE: 0.30). Internal stretch factor of septal and lateral wall (ISFsep–lat) showed fair ICC values (CMR-FT: 0.53, STE: 0.46), while the ICC of the total LV (ISFLV) was fair for CMR-FT (0.55) and poor for STE (ICC: 0.32). The CURE index had a fair ICC for both comparisons (CMR-FT: 0.49, STE 0.41). Although comparison of STE to CMR-TAG was limited by methodological differences, agreement between CMR-FT and CMR-TAG was overall higher compared to STE and CMR-TAG. CMR-FT is a potential clinical alternative for CMR-TAG and STE, especially in the detection of discoordination in CRT-candidates.
Everdingen et al. (Tue,) conducted a observational in Heart failure in CRT candidates (n=27). CMR feature tracking (CMR-FT) and speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) vs. CMR tagging (CMR-TAG) was evaluated on Agreement of systolic stretch index (SSI) between CMR feature tracking and CMR tagging (ICC 0.58, 95% CI 0.00-0.83, p=<0.001). CMR feature tracking showed fair agreement with gold-standard CMR tagging for measuring mechanical discoordination (SSI ICC 0.58), suggesting it is a potential clinical alternative for evaluating CRT candidates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: