What does this research mean for the field?

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking demonstrates poor agreement with tissue tagging for measuring segmental peak systolic circumferential strain and is not yet reliable enough for clinical or research purposes. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.METHODOLOGICAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate the validity and observer variability of cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking for measuring segmental peak systolic circumferential strain and time to peak strain compared with tissue tagging.

January 22, 2014Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceOpen Access

Feature tracking compared with tissue tagging measurements of segmental strain by cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cross-Sectional. Population: Left bundle branch block (LBBB), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), and healthy volunteers (n=30). Intervention: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking (CMR-FT) vs. Myocardial tissue tagging. Primary outcome: Mean peak systolic circumferential strain (peak SCS) (ICC 0.19, 95% CI -0.10-0.49, p=0.02).

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

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).

Why the study?

Does cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking accurately measure segmental strain compared to tissue tagging in healthy volunteers and patients with cardiac diseases?

Population

30 subjects who had both CMR cine-imaging and tissue tagging performed.

Comparison

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial… vs Myocardial tissue tagging (gold standard)

Design

Cohort

Authors

LWLina WuSun Yat-sen University TGTjeerd GermansCardiac Imaging AGAhmet GüçlüIsala

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

CMR-FT lacks sufficient agreement with tagging for strain; leaves open its clinical or research applicability pending validation.

Key Points

To evaluate the validity and observer variability of cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking for measuring segmental peak systolic circumferential strain and time to peak strain compared with tissue tagging.
Assessed 30 subjects (N=10 healthy volunteers, N=10 left bundle branch block patients, and N=10 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients) who underwent both cine CMR and myocardial tissue tagging.
Tracked 480 myocardial segments using endocardial (CMR-FTendo) and mid-wall (CMR-FTmid) contours to calculate Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) and Pearson correlations against tissue tagging.
Segmental peak systolic strain differed significantly from tissue tagging (-13.4 ± 3.3%) for CMR-FTendo (-23.8 ± 9.9%, p<0.001) and CMR-FTmid (-16.4 ± 6.1%, p=0.001), yielding a low overall ICC for CMR-FTendo (0.19, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.49, p=0.02).
Time to peak systolic strain was significantly longer in left bundle branch block patients using CMR-FTendo (418 ± 66 ms) and CMR-FTmid (454 ± 60 ms) compared to tissue tagging (376 ± 55 ms, both p<0.05).
Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility for segmental peak strain and time to peak strain was consistently lower with CMR-FTmid than with tissue tagging.

Study Design

Type

Cross-Sectional (n=30)

Multicenter

Structured PICO

Does cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking accurately measure segmental strain compared to tissue tagging in healthy volunteers and patients with cardiac diseases?

Population

30 subjects (10 healthy volunteers, 10 patients with complete left bundle branch block and heart failure, and 10 patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy) who had both CMR cine-imaging and tissue tagging performed.

Intervention

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking (CMR-FT) using endocardial (CMR-FTendo) and mid-wall contours (CMR-FTmid)

Comparator

Myocardial tissue tagging (gold standard)

Outcome

Segmental peak systolic circumferential strain (peak SCS) and time to peak systolic circumferential strain (T2P-SCS)surrogate

Main Result

Effect estimate: ICC 0.19 (95% CI -0.10-0.49)

Absolute Event Rate: -23.8% vs -13.4%

p-value: p=0.02

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.

Limitations

Small number of patients in the study and separate patient groups
Slice levels for CMR-FT and tissue tagging were similar but not identical
Contours for CMR-FTmid drawn on the mid-wall of the left ventricle are more subjected to variation

Cite This Study

Wu et al. (2014) 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).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a166b72497e763bc37c098f https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429x-16-10

Topics

Cardiac MRI Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Feature tracking compared with tissue tagging measurements of segmental strain by cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Limitations

Cite This Study

Topics

Feature tracking compared with tissue tagging measurements of segmental strain by cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Limitations

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Topics

Also Consider