Key result
Semi-automated GLS software shows minimal inter-vendor differences with an average maximum bias of ~0.6%.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to assess inter-vendor differences in global longitudinal strain measurements and determine whether there has been an improvement compared with 10 years ago.
Are there significant inter-vendor differences in 2D-speckle tracking global longitudinal strain measurements using contemporary software?
Observational (n=62)
Are there significant inter-vendor differences in 2D-speckle tracking global longitudinal strain measurements using contemporary software?
Contemporary semi-automated clinical software for 2D-speckle tracking global longitudinal strain shows minimal inter-vendor differences, indicating improved standardization over the past 10 years.
Minimal inter-vendor GLS bias supports interchangeable use across platforms; confirms standardization gains but leaves open prospective outcome validation.
AIMS: To assess the inter-vendor differences in global longitudinal strain measurements and determine a potential improvement compared with the situation 10 years ago. METHODS AND RESULTS: 372 echocardiographic exams were performed in 62 subjects (50 male, age 56 ± 17) with LV ejection fraction ranging from 30% to 68%, using ultrasound systems from six manufacturers: GE, Philips, Canon, Siemens, Fujifilm and Esaote. Each subject was scanned consecutively on all machines by the same assigned sonographer, with two image sets per subject to assess test-retest setting reproducibility. Average peak systolic global strain from the three apical views (GLSAV) was measured on three vendor-specific (Canon, Siemens, and Fujifilm) and six vendor-agnostic (GE, Philips, US2.AI, Caas Qardia, Medis, and Epsilon) software solutions (SWS). Endocardial and mid-/full-wall GLS were measured and compared with the mean GLS of contemporary semi-automated clinical software: GE, Philips, Canon, Fujifilm, and Caas Qardia. Endocardial and mid-/full-wall GLS measurements from contemporary semi-automated clinical software showed minimal inter-vendor differences, with an average maximum bias of 0.6% strain units. There was a remaining inter-vendor bias with and among some other vendors. The average minimal detectable change with contemporary semi-automated clinical software was 2.5 and 2.4 strain% for endocardial and mid-/full-wall GLS, resp. These values were higher for and among some other vendors. Test-retest variability of GLS measurements was good and similar to that of LV ejection fraction (6.6% vs. 6.5%, P > 0.05), indicating consistent results across repeated scans. CONCLUSION: In this controlled study setting, GLS measurements from companies that provide contemporary semi-automated clinical software have become more consistent, compared with 10 years ago. Mid-/full-wall strain was now available in all but one software.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Balinisteanu et al. (2025) conducted an observational in LV ejection fraction ranging from 30% to 68% (n=62). 2D-speckle tracking global longitudinal strain measurement vs. Inter-vendor comparison was evaluated on Inter-vendor differences in global longitudinal strain measurements. Contemporary semi-automated clinical software for global longitudinal strain showed minimal inter-vendor differences, with an average maximum bias of 0.6% strain units.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: