Global longitudinal strain assessment was comparable between GE EchoPac and Toshiba Wall Motion Tracking software (-21.95% vs -22.28%, P=NS), showing narrower limits of agreement than other parameters.
Cross-Sectional (n=28)
Do different commercially available speckle-tracking software systems (GE vs Toshiba) provide comparable measurements of global myocardial strain in healthy subjects?
Two commercially available speckle-tracking software systems provide comparable measurements of left ventricular function, with global longitudinal strain being the most robust parameter across different platforms.
Absolute Event Rate: -21.95% vs -22.28%
p-value: p=NS
AIMS: Two-dimensional (2D) speckle echocardiography enables objective assessment of left ventricular function through the analysis of myocardial strain, which can be measured by different speckle-tracking software. The aim of this study was to compare two different commercially available cardiac ultrasound systems and their manufacturer-specific speckle-tacking software for the quantification of global myocardial strain in a healthy population. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-eight healthy subjects (age: 38 +/- 12, 64% males) underwent two 2D echocardiograms within the same day using different cardiac ultrasound systems: Vivid 7 (GE Ultrasound, Horten, Norway) and Artida 4D (Toshiba Medical Systems). Standard apical and short-axis views of the left ventricle were obtained in each subject with a frame-rate range of 60 +/- 20 frames/s. Global longitudinal, radial, and circumferential strain values were analysed using their respective speckle-tracking software for Vivid (2D-strain EchoPac PC v.7.0.1, GE Healthcare, Horten, Norway) and Toshiba systems (2D Wall Motion Tracking, Toshiba Medical Systems). Global strain values were estimated from the average of regional left ventricular strain values. Agreement between the two systems and software was assessed by Bland-Altman method. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 59 +/- 7%. Global longitudinal, radial, and circumferential strain values were, respectively, -21.95 +/- 1.8, 46.97 +/- 5.5, and -23.18 +/- 3.3% when using 2D-strain EchoPac and -22.28 +/- 2.1, 40.74 +/- 4.3, and -27.17 +/- 4.7% when 2D Wall Motion Tracking was used (P = NS). Limits of agreement between both speckle-tracking software were narrower for global longitudinal strain (-2.25 to 3.65) than for radial and circumferential strain (-2.23 to 12.44 and -1.36 to 10.54, respectively). CONCLUSION: Two commercially available speckle-tracking software appear to be comparable when quantifying left ventricular function in a healthy population. Global longitudinal strain is a more robust parameter than radial and circumferential strain for the assessment of myocardial function when different cardiac ultrasound systems are used for analysis.
Manovel et al. (Sat,) realizaram um estudo transversal em uma população saudável (n=28). O Vivid 7 com EchoPac PC 2D-strain vs. Artida 4D com rastreamento de movimento da parede 2D foi avaliado quanto à deformação longitudinal global (p=NS). A avaliação da deformação longitudinal global foi comparável entre o GE EchoPac e o software de rastreamento de movimento da parede Toshiba (-21,95% vs -22,28%, P=NS), mostrando limites de concordância mais estreitos do que outros parâmetros.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: