Key result
Two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography had a lower ability than 2D-tagged CMR to discriminate infarcted segments using circumferential strain (AUC 0.61 vs 0.75; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does 2D speckle tracking echocardiography accurately measure myocardial strain compared to CMR tagging and sonomicrometry?
Population
136 patients included prospectively at 2 centers, and a dynamic heart phantom (in vitro model)
Comparison
Two-dimensional speckle tracking… vs 2D-tagged cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
May warrant caution with speckle tracking echocardiography for infarct assessment; leaves open the role of strain imaging versus CMR in viability evaluation.
Observational (n=136)
Yes
Does 2D speckle tracking echocardiography accurately measure myocardial strain compared to CMR tagging and sonomicrometry?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.61% vs 0.75%
p-value: p=<0.001
Global longitudinal and circumferential strain by 2D speckle tracking echocardiography show good agreement with CMR tagging, but regional strain estimates exhibit higher variability and lower accuracy for detecting infarction.
Amzulescu et al. (2017) reported an observational. Two-dimensional speckle tracking (2DST) echocardiography vs. 2D-tagged (2DTagg) cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was evaluated on Ability to discriminate infarcted versus noninfarcted segments by late gadolinium enhancement using circumferential strain (AUC) (p=<0.001). Two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography had a lower ability than 2D-tagged CMR to discriminate infarcted segments using circumferential strain (AUC 0.61 vs 0.75; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: