Key result
CMR feature tracking cuts analysis time ~40% vs tagging while tracking all myocardial segments.
Why the study?
Contractile dysfunction after STEMI predicts prognosis and CMR tagging is the gold standard for myocardial strain assessment, but it requires additional sequences and time-consuming post-processing. There were no published strain data using feature tracking in acute STEMI.
Does CMR feature tracking provide comparable or superior assessment of left ventricular systolic strain compared to CMR tagging in patients with acute STEMI?
Population
24 acute STEMI patients
Comparison
CMR feature tracking vs CMR tagging for global and segmental Ecc and Ell strain assessment
Design
Observational study using CMR at 1.5T
Authors
Loading...
FT strain on routine cine CMR may simplify post-STEMI assessment; leaves open incremental value over LVEF or tagging.
Observational (n=24)
Does CMR feature tracking provide comparable or superior assessment of left ventricular systolic strain compared to CMR tagging in patients with acute STEMI?
Absolute Event Rate: 38.2% vs 63.7%
p-value: p=<0.001
CMR feature tracking is a feasible, robust, and quicker alternative to tagging for assessing myocardial strain in acute STEMI, offering better reproducibility and stronger correlations with infarct characteristics.
Khan et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=24). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking vs. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance tagging was evaluated on Total analysis time per patient (minutes) (p=<0.001). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking significantly reduced total analysis time compared to tagging (38.2 vs 63.7 minutes, p<0.001) and successfully tracked all myocardial segments.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: