Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking demonstrated poor agreement with tissue tagging for measuring mean peak systolic circumferential strain (-23.8% vs -13.4%, ICC 0.19).
Cross-Sectional (n=30)
No
Does cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking accurately measure segmental strain compared to tissue tagging in healthy volunteers and patients with cardiac diseases?
Current segmental CMR-FTmid techniques have substantially lower intra- and inter-observer agreement compared with tissue tagging, making them not yet applicable for clinical and research purposes.
Effect estimate: ICC 0.19 (95% CI -0.10-0.49)
Absolute Event Rate: -23.8% vs -13.4%
p-value: p=0.02
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular segmental wall motion analysis is important for clinical decision making in cardiac diseases. Strain analysis with myocardial tissue tagging is the non-invasive gold standard for quantitative assessment, however, it is time-consuming. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking (CMR-FT) can rapidly perform strain analysis, because it can be employed with standard CMR cine-imaging. The aim is to validate segmental peak systolic circumferential strain (peak SCS) and time to peak systolic circumferential strain (T2P-SCS) analysed by CMR-FT against tissue tagging, and determine its intra and inter-observer variability. METHODS: Patients in whom both cine CMR and tissue tagging has been performed were selected. CMR-FT analysis was done using endocardial (CMR-FTendo) and mid-wall contours (CMR-FTmid). The Intra Class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Pearson correlation were calculated. RESULTS: 10 healthy volunteers, 10 left bundle branch block (LBBB) and 10 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients were selected. With CMR-FT all 480 segments were analyzable and with tissue tagging 464 segments.Significant differences in mean peak SCS values of the total study group were present between CMR-FTendo and tissue tagging (-23.8 ± 9.9% vs -13.4 ± 3.3%, p<0.001). Differences were smaller between CMR-FTmid and tissue tagging (-16.4 ± 6.1% vs -13.4 ± 3.3%, p=0.001). The ICC of the mean peak SCS of the total study group between CMR-FTendo and tissue tagging was low (0.19 (95%-CI-0.10-0.49), p=0.02). Comparable results were seen between CMR-FTmid and tissue tagging. In LBBB patients, mean T2P-SCS values measured with CMR-FTendo and CMR-FTmid were 418 ± 66 ms, 454 ± 60 ms, which were longer than with tissue tagging, 376 ± 55 ms, both p<0.05. ICC of the mean T2P-SCS between CMR-FTendo and tissue tagging was 0.64 (95%-CI-0.36-0.81), p<0.001, this was better in the healthy volunteers and LBBB group, whereas the ICC between CMR-FTmid and tissue tagging was lower.The intra and inter-observer agreement of segmental peak SCS with CMR-FTmid was lower compared with tissue tagging; similar results were seen for segmental T2P-SCS. CONCLUSIONS: The intra and inter-observer agreement of segmental peak SCS and T2P-SCS is substantially lower with CMR-FTmid compared with tissue tagging. Therefore, current segmental CMR-FTmid techniques are not yet applicable for clinical and research purposes.
Wu et al. (Wed,) conducted a cross-sectional in Left bundle branch block (LBBB), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), and healthy volunteers (n=30). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking (CMR-FT) vs. Myocardial tissue tagging was evaluated on Mean peak systolic circumferential strain (peak SCS) (ICC 0.19, 95% CI -0.10-0.49, p=0.02). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking demonstrated poor agreement with tissue tagging for measuring mean peak systolic circumferential strain (-23.8% vs -13.4%, ICC 0.19).