Key result
Focused narrow-beam ultrasound improves radial strain precision by up to ~34% over standard imaging methods.
Why the study?
The accuracy and precision of diverging wave imaging compared to focused-beam transmit approaches in human cardiac strain imaging is unknown.
Does composite focused imaging with narrow-beams improve the accuracy and precision of cardiac strain estimation compared to coherent compounding or wide-beam imaging in healthy subjects?
Does composite focused imaging with narrow-beams improve the accuracy and precision of cardiac strain estimation compared to coherent compounding or wide-beam imaging in healthy subjects?
Focused narrow-beam imaging with ECG gating provides more accurate and precise cardiac strain estimation than coherent compounding or wide-beam imaging.
May enhance radial strain precision in echocardiography; leaves open validation and clinical utility in patients with heart disease.
Unfocused ultrasound imaging, particularly coherent compounding with diverging waves, is a commonly employed high-frame rate transmit strategy in cardiac strain imaging. However, the accuracy and precision of diverging wave imaging compared to focused-beam transmit approaches in human subjects is unknown. Three transmit strategies—coherent compounding imaging, composite focused imaging with ECG gating and narrow-beams, and focused imaging with wide-beams—were compared in simulation and in transthoracic imaging of healthy human subjects ( n = 7). The focused narrow-beam sequence estimated radial end-systolic cumulative strains of a simulated left ventricular deformation with 26% ± 1.5% and 34% ± 1.5% greater accuracy compared with compounding and wide-beam imaging, respectively. Strain estimation precision in transthoracic imaging was then assessed with the Strain Filter on cumulative end-systolic radial strains. Within the strain values where statistically significant differences in precision (E(SNR e | ε )) were found between transmit strategies, the narrow-beam sequence estimated radial strain 13% ± 0.71% and 34% ± 8.9% more precisely on average compared to compounding or wide-beam imaging, respectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sayseng et al. (2019) studied Healthy (n=7). Composite focused imaging with ECG gating and narrow-beams vs. Coherent compounding imaging and focused imaging with wide-beams was evaluated on Accuracy and precision of radial end-systolic cumulative strains. Focused narrow-beam ultrasound imaging estimated radial strain 13% and 34% more precisely than coherent compounding and wide-beam imaging, respectively, in healthy subjects.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: