Key result
2D circumferential strain analysis using MR tagging showed good similarity to 3D analysis (maximum r2 0.97 in healthy, 0.87 in LBBB) with no significant differences in timing or peak shortening.
Why the study?
Does 2D circumferential strain analysis using MRI tagging provide similar results to 3D analysis for measuring mechanical dyssynchrony in healthy and LBBB hearts?
Cross-Sectional (n=11)
Does 2D circumferential strain analysis using MRI tagging provide similar results to 3D analysis for measuring mechanical dyssynchrony in healthy and LBBB hearts?
Effect estimate: r2 0.97 (healthy), 0.87 (LBBB)
2D strain analysis using MRI tagging is sufficient to measure mechanical dyssynchrony, offering an easier-to-implement alternative to 3D analysis for clinical routine.
Supports 2D MR tagging as simpler dyssynchrony alternative; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
The response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), which is applied to patients with heart failure (HF) and left bundle-branch block (LBBB), can be predicted from the mechanical dyssynchrony measured on circumferential strain. Circumferential strain can be assessed by either 2D or 3D strain analysis. In this study was evaluated the difference between 2D and 3D circumferential strain using MR tagging with high temporal resolution (14 ms). Six healthy volunteers and five patients with LBBB were evaluated. We compared the 2D and 3D circumferential strains by computing the mechanical dyssynchrony and the cross correlation (r) between 2D and 3D strain curves, and by quantifying the differences in peak circumferential shortening, time to onset, and time to peak of shortening. The obtained maximum r(2) values were 0.97 +/- 0.03 and 0.87 +/- 0.16 for the healthy and LBBB populations, respectively, and thus showed a good similarity between 2D and 3D strain curves. No significant difference was observed between 2D and 3D in time to onset, time to peak, or peak circumferential shortening. Thus, to measure dyssynchrony, 2D strain analysis will suffice. Since 2D analysis is easier to implement than 3D analysis, this finding brings the application of MRI tagging and strain analysis closer to the clinical routine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tecelão et al. (2007) conducted a cross-sectional in Left bundle-branch block (LBBB) and healthy volunteers (n=11). 2D circumferential strain analysis using MR tagging vs. 3D circumferential strain analysis using MR tagging was evaluated on Difference between 2D and 3D circumferential strain (mechanical dyssynchrony, cross correlation, peak circumferential shortening, time to onset, time to peak) (r2 0.97 (healthy), 0.87 (LBBB)). 2D circumferential strain analysis using MR tagging showed good similarity to 3D analysis (maximum r2 0.97 in healthy, 0.87 in LBBB) with no significant differences in timing or peak shortening.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: