Key result
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance strain values are technique and vendor dependent, with small differences in circumferential and longitudinal strain but large differences in radial strain across methods.
Why the study?
How do DENSE and feature tracking techniques compare with tagging for the cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of myocardial strain?
Population
87 subjects undergoing CMR on a 1.5 T scanner.
Comparison
Myocardial strain evaluation using displacement… vs Myocardial strain evaluation using tagging, used…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Caution advised comparing strain values across techniques in follow-up; leaves open need for standardized reference values in research.
Cross-Sectional (n=87)
No
How do DENSE and feature tracking techniques compare with tagging for the cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of myocardial strain?
Mean Difference: 0.155 (95% CI -6.166–6.476)
Absolute Event Rate: -13% vs -13%
p-value: p=0.663
CMR strain values are highly technique and vendor dependent, emphasizing the need for technique-specific reference standards and the use of consistent software for sequential patient comparisons.
Cao et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiomyopathy (n=87). DENSE and feature tracking vs. HARP tagging was evaluated on Peak circumferential strain (Ecc) agreement between DENSE and HARP tagging (MD 0.155%, 95% CI -6.166 to 6.476, p=0.663). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance strain values are technique and vendor dependent, with small differences in circumferential and longitudinal strain but large differences in radial strain across methods.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: