Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
June 11, 2020IJC Heart & VasculatureOpen Access

Cardiac magnetic resonance longitudinal strain analysis in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A comparison with speckle-tracking echocardiography

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Key result

Cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking showed good agreement with speckle-tracking echocardiography for global longitudinal strain (ICC 0.826) in patients with acute STEMI.

Why the study?

Although CMR feature tracking allows strain analysis from routine cine images, its feasibility and agreement with speckle-tracking echocardiography in acute STEMI required evaluation.

Does cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) agree with speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) for longitudinal strain analysis in patients with acute STEMI?

Population

128 patients undergoing primary percutaneous revascularisation after STEMI

Comparison

CMR feature tracking vs speckle-tracking echocardiography

Design

Observational comparative imaging study

Authors

FVFilipa ValenteCardiac ImagingLGLaura GutiérrezAllegheny Health NetworkLRLucia Rodríguez-EyrasHospital Universitari de Girona Doctor Josep Trueta

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Implication

May support interchangeable GLS assessment by CMR-FT or STE in acute STEMI; leaves open larger prospective validation.

Key Points

  • To evaluate the feasibility and agreement of cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) compared with speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) for longitudinal strain assessment in patients with acute STEMI.
  • Assessed 128 patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention following an acute STEMI using both echocardiography and CMR cine imaging.
  • Measured peak systolic longitudinal strain (LS) at global and segmental levels with both STE and CMR-FT in 98 patients who had adequate image quality on both modalities.
  • Myocardial tracking was feasible in 97.2% of segments with STE and 97.7% of segments with CMR-FT across 1,568 analyzed segments.
  • Global longitudinal strain showed good agreement between STE (-14.8 ± 3.3%) and CMR-FT (-13.7 ± 3.0%), with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.826, a mean bias of -1.09%, and limits of agreement of ±4.2%.
  • Segmental longitudinal strain agreement was moderate (ICC 0.678, bias -1.14%, limits of agreement ±11.76%), while both modalities demonstrated excellent intra- and inter-observer reproducibility (ICC > 0.9).

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=128)

Structured PICO

Does cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) agree with speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) for longitudinal strain analysis in patients with acute STEMI?

P
Population
128 patients who underwent primary percutaneous revascularisation after an acute STEMI.
E
Exposure
Cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) for longitudinal strain analysis
C
Comparator
Speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) for longitudinal strain analysis
O
Outcome
Agreement between CMR-FT and STE for peak systolic longitudinal strain (global and segmental)surrogate

Main Result

Effect estimate: ICC 0.826

Absolute Event Rate: -13.7% vs -14.8%

CMR-FT provides global longitudinal strain measurements with good agreement to STE in STEMI patients, offering a robust and reproducible alternative for ventricular function assessment.

Cite This Study

Valente et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=128). Cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) vs. Speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) was evaluated on Global longitudinal strain (LS) (ICC 0.826). Cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking showed good agreement with speckle-tracking echocardiography for global longitudinal strain (ICC 0.826) in patients with acute STEMI.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9a48ffc83637f7e8fb5a5dhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.100560
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Direct comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking and 2D/3D echocardiography speckle tracking for evaluation of global left ventricular strain2015 · 153 citations
  2. 2Feature tracking compared with tissue tagging measurements of segmental strain by cardiovascular magnetic resonance2014 · 133 citations
  3. 3Improved segmental myocardial strain reproducibility using deformable registration algorithms compared with feature tracking cardiac MRI and speckle tracking echocardiography2017 · 28 citations
  4. 4Quantification of biventricular myocardial function using cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking, endocardial border delineation and echocardiographic speckle tracking in patients with repaired tetralogy of fallot and healthy controls2012 · 155 citations
  5. 5Standardized image interpretation and post processing in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) Board of Trustees Task Force on Standardized Post Processing2013 · 1,527 citations