Key result
Myocardial strain analysis showed low inter-vendor reproducibility (ICCs 0.32-0.77) and inconsistent associations with acute cellular rejection in heart transplant recipients.
Why the study?
The authors sought to investigate how inter-vendor variability impacts the ability of myocardial strain analysis to detect acute cellular rejection in heart transplant recipients.
Does myocardial strain analysis reliably detect acute cellular rejection across different software vendors in heart transplant recipients?
Observational (n=18)
No
Does myocardial strain analysis reliably detect acute cellular rejection across different software vendors in heart transplant recipients?
Inter-vendor reproducibility of myocardial strain values is low, and specific validation of each software is required before using it to detect acute cellular rejection in heart transplant recipients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Strain analysis warrants caution for rejection surveillance across vendors; leaves open whether vendor-specific validation improves utility in transplant cohorts.
PURPOSE: Our objective was to investigate the impact of inter-vendor variability in the ability of myocardial strain analysis to detect acute cellular rejection (ACR) in heart transplant recipients. METHODS: We performed serial echocardiographic examinations in 18 consecutive adult heart transplanted patients, in their first year post-transplantation, within 3 hours of the routine surveillance endomyocardial biopsies (EMB) in a single center. Myocardial strain was analyzed using two software in two different institutions, and inter-vendor variability of strain values and its association with ACR (any grade or grade ≥2R) was investigated. The parameter of comparison was the peak value of the average curve of strain during the entire cardiac cycle. RESULTS: A total of 147 pairs of EMB-echocardiogram were performed, 65 with no ACR, 63 with ACR grade 1R, and 19 with ACR grade ≥2R. Intra-class correlation coefficients for left ventricle longitudinal, radial, and circumferential strain were 0.38, 0.39, and 0.77, respectively, and 0.32 for right ventricular longitudinal strain. Neither software found significant association of left ventricular longitudinal strain with rejection. Grade ≥2R ACR was associated with left ventricular circumferential strain measured with the first software and with left ventricular radial strain with the other; and ACR of any grade was only significantly associated with right ventricle longitudinal strain measured with the first software. CONCLUSIONS: Inter-vendor reproducibility of strain values was low in this study. Some strain parameters were associated to ACR, although these results were inconsistent between two commercially available software. Specific validation of each software is warranted for this clinical indication.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ortiz et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Heart transplant recipients (n=18). Myocardial strain analysis (two software vendors) vs. Inter-vendor comparison was evaluated on Inter-vendor variability of strain values and association with acute cellular rejection. Myocardial strain analysis showed low inter-vendor reproducibility (ICCs 0.32-0.77) and inconsistent associations with acute cellular rejection in heart transplant recipients.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: