Key result
Feature and Tissue Tracking yield ~84% higher absolute circumferential strain versus CMR tagging in STEMI.
Why the study?
CMR strain assessment has traditionally used tagging, but limitations have led to alternative methods whose inter-study repeatability compared to tagging in STEMI required evaluation.
Do cine-based CMR strain assessment methods (Feature Tracking and Tissue Tracking) improve inter-study repeatability compared to traditional tagging in patients following STEMI?
Population
Twenty male patients 1-5 days post-STEMI
Comparison
CMR tagging vs Feature Tracking vs Tissue Tracking at 1.5 T or 3.0 T
Design
Randomised repeatability study
Follow-up
ten minutes
Authors
Loading...
May support cine-based strain for serial post-STEMI monitoring; extends validation of feature/tissue tracking versus tagging at 1.5 T.
RCT (n=20)
Blinded readers
1:1 to 1.5 T or 3.0 T CMR
No
Do cine-based CMR strain assessment methods (Feature Tracking and Tissue Tracking) improve inter-study repeatability compared to traditional tagging in patients following STEMI?
Absolute Event Rate: -17.5% vs -9.5%
p-value: p=<0.001
Cine-based CMR methods (Feature Tracking and Tissue Tracking) provide superior inter-study repeatability for measuring circumferential strain compared to traditional tagging in post-STEMI patients.
Nazir et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=20). Feature Tracking (FT) and Tissue Tracking (TT) CMR vs. CMR Tagging was evaluated on Circumferential global peak-systolic strain (Ecc) at 1.5 T (p=<0.001). Feature Tracking and Tissue Tracking yielded higher absolute values for circumferential strain compared to CMR tagging in STEMI patients, with excellent inter-study repeatability at 1.5 T.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: