Key result
Magnetic resonance feature tracking for longitudinal strain calculation correlated highly with reference standard tissue tagging analysis (Pearson r=0.67, P=0.0001) and required significantly less post-processing time.
Why the study?
Does magnetic resonance feature-tracking accurately measure longitudinal strain compared to SPAMM tissue tagging in adults with and without dilated cardiomyopathy?
Cross-Sectional (n=30)
Double-blind
No
Does magnetic resonance feature-tracking accurately measure longitudinal strain compared to SPAMM tissue tagging in adults with and without dilated cardiomyopathy?
Feature-tracking analysis provides a fast and highly correlated alternative to SPAMM tissue tagging for assessing longitudinal strain, though it consistently overestimates values.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May expedite strain analysis in clinical CMR workflows; leaves open outcome validation versus tagging in cardiomyopathy.
Background Feature-tracking (FT) analysis offers a novel, fast and practicable method to calculate strain from routinely acquired steady state free precession (SSFP) images without the need to perform additional tagged sequences. There is no validation of this technique, however, against a reference standard myocardial tagging analysis for any strain parameter other than mid-left ventricular whole slice circumferential strain in children. In an adult study of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and healthy controls, we sought to validate the FT method (TomTec Imaging systems, Munich) against spatial modulation of magnetization (SPAMM) tissue tagging analysis (Cardiac Image Modeling Package (CIMTAG), University of Auckland) for the computation of long axis function. Methods We compared measures of peak systolic longitudinal strain from the horizontal long axis view using the 2 techniques in 30 patients (median age 42 yr, male 40%). Normal healthy adults were identified from an ongoing prospective, observational research study examining the effects of living kidney donation on cardiovascular structure and function (NCT01028703) while DCM patients underwent routine tagging during CMR studies performed for clinical requirements. A timed retrospective off-line analysis was performed on matched tagged and SSFP slices by 2 independent blinded observers (WEM and RJT). Results Mean peak systolic longitudinal strain and strain rate determined by FT were significantly reduced in DCM patients compared with healthy controls (-6.7 ± 1.7% vs. -20.4 ± 3.7%, P<0.001 and -1.21 ± 0.14 /s vs. -0.61 ± 0.09 /s, both P<0.0001). The mean peak systolic longitudinal strain of DCM patients determined by CIMTAG (-6.7 ± 1.7%) and FT (-7.0 ± 1.4%) was not significantly different (P = NS). In an analysis of all patients, mean FT systolic longitudinal strain values were highly correlated with CIMTAG values, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.67 (P=0.0001, Figure 1). The individual longitudinal systolic strain values obtained for each
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moody et al. (2013) conducted a cross-sectional in Dilated cardiomyopathy and healthy controls (n=30). Magnetic resonance feature tracking (FT) vs. Spatial modulation of magnetization (SPAMM) tissue tagging analysis (CIMTAG) was evaluated on Correlation of mean peak systolic longitudinal strain between FT and CIMTAG (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.67, p=0.0001). Magnetic resonance feature tracking for longitudinal strain calculation correlated highly with reference standard tissue tagging analysis (Pearson r=0.67, P=0.0001) and required significantly less post-processing time.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: