Why the study?
The study was conducted to evaluate the agreement and reproducibility of cardiac CT feature tracking against CMR feature tracking and the reference standard, CMR tagging, for assessing GLS and GCS.
Does cardiac CT feature tracking provide comparable global longitudinal and circumferential strain measurements to CMR feature tracking and tagging in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Does cardiac CT feature tracking provide comparable global longitudinal and circumferential strain measurements to CMR feature tracking and tagging in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
CT feature tracking performs equally well to CMR feature tracking and tagging for assessing myocardial strain in patients with severe aortic stenosis, offering a reliable alternative imaging modality.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CT-FT agrees with CMR-FT and tagging for GLS/GCS in severe AS; leaves open validation in larger cohorts before routine use.
In this study, we used a single commercially available software solution to assess global longitudinal (GLS) and global circumferential strain (GCS) using cardiac computed tomography (CT) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) feature tracking (FT). We compared agreement and reproducibility between these two methods and the reference standard, CMR tagging (TAG). Twenty-seven patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent CMR and cardiac CT examinations. FT analysis was performed using Medis suite version 3.0 (Leiden, The Netherlands) software. Segment (Medviso) software was used for GCS assessment from tagged images. There was a trend towards the underestimation of GLS by CT-FT when compared to CMR-FT (19.4 ± 5.04 vs. 22.40 ± 5.69, respectively; p = 0.065). GCS values between TAG, CT-FT, and CMR-FT were similar (p = 0.233). CMR-FT and CT-FT correlated closely for GLS (r = 0.686, p < 0.001) and GCS (r = 0.707, p < 0.001), while both of these methods correlated moderately with TAG for GCS (r = 0.479, p < 0.001 for CMR-FT vs. TAG; r = 0.548 for CT-FT vs. TAG). Intraobserver and interobserver agreement was excellent in all techniques. Our findings show that, in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), the FT algorithm performs equally well in CMR and cardiac CT datasets for the assessment of GLS and GCS, both in terms of reproducibility and agreement with the gold standard, TAG.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miskinyte et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: