Key result
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking and endocardial longitudinal strain by speckle tracking echocardiography demonstrated strong inter-modality agreement (r=0.87) for evaluating coronary microvascular obstruction in STEMI patients.
Why the study?
Both LS-STE and CMR-FT are used to evaluate coronary microvascular obstruction in STEMI, but a direct comparison between the two modalities was needed.
How does cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking compare to layer-specific speckle tissue echocardiography for evaluating coronary microvascular obstruction in STEMI patients?
Observational (n=105)
No
How does cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking compare to layer-specific speckle tissue echocardiography for evaluating coronary microvascular obstruction in STEMI patients?
Effect estimate: r = 0.87
p-value: p=<0.0001
CMR-FT is a viable and reliable technique for evaluating coronary microvascular obstruction in STEMI patients, showing strong agreement with endocardial longitudinal strain measured by LS-STE.
Supports echocardiography as a viable alternative to CMR for MVO assessment in STEMI; extends validation of strain imaging modalities.
PURPOSE: Layer-specific speckle tissue echocardiography (LS-STE) is a unique technique used to assess coronary microvascular obstruction (CMVO) that may offer more information on the myocardial anatomy of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) has also been gaining popularity as a way to evaluate CMVO. The aim of the present study was to directly compare CMVO assessment in STEMI patients using CMR-FT and LS-STE. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 105 STEMI patients with LS-STE, CMR-FT, and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) were included in the study. Longitudinal peak systolic strain (LS), circumferential peak systolic strain (CS), and radial peak systolic strain (RS) were each used to evaluate CMVO using CMR-FT and LS-STE. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients were 0.56, 0.53, and 0.55 for CMR-FT CS vs. endocardial CS, midcardial CS, and epicardial CS comparisons, respectively, and 0.87, 0.51, and 0.32 for CMR-FT LS vs. endocardial LS, midcardial LS, and epicardial LS comparisons, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis revealed strong inter-modality agreement and little bias in endocardial LS, while the absolute of limited of agreement (LOA) value was 2.28 ± 4.48. The absolutes LOA values were 1.26 ± 11.16, -0.02 ± 12.21, and - 1.3 ± 10.27 for endocardial, midcardial, and epicardial respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficient value of 0.87 showed good reliability in endocardial LS, and moderate reliability with values of 0.71, 0.70, and 0.64 in endocardial, midcardial, and epicardial CS, respectively (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CMR-FT is a viable technique for CMVO evaluation in STEMI patients. Endocardial LS showed good reliability for CMR-FT. STEMI patients can undergo LS-STE to assess the CMVO before PPCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2023) conducted an observational in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with coronary microvascular obstruction (n=105). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) vs. Layer-specific speckle tissue echocardiography (LS-STE) was evaluated on Correlation between CMR-FT longitudinal strain and LS-STE endocardial longitudinal strain (r = 0.87, p=<0.0001). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking and endocardial longitudinal strain by speckle tracking echocardiography demonstrated strong inter-modality agreement (r=0.87) for evaluating coronary microvascular obstruction in STEMI patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: