PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 28, 2014Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging111 citationsOpen Access

Comparison of magnetic resonance feature tracking for systolic and diastolic strain and strain rate calculation with spatial modulation of magnetization imaging analysis

View Full Paper
WMWilliam E. MoodyRTRobin J. TaylorNENicola C. Edwards

Structured PICO

Does cardiovascular magnetic resonance-feature tracking provide comparable strain and strain rate measurements to SPAMM tagged imaging in healthy controls and patients with dilated cardiomyopathy?

P
Population
45 participants, comprising healthy controls (n=35) and patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (n=10)
I
Intervention
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance-feature tracking (CMR-FT) analysis of steady-state free precession (SSFP) cine imaging
C
Comparator
Spatial modulation of magnetization (SPAMM) tagged imaging using a gradient-echo sequence (CIMTag2D)
O
Outcome
Agreement between short and long axis Lagrangian strain and strain rate measures in systole and diastolesurrogate

CMR-FT is a feasible and rapid alternative to myocardial tagging for calculating systolic and diastolic strain measures.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare cardiovascular magnetic resonance-feature tracking (CMR-FT) with spatial modulation of magnetization (SPAMM) tagged imaging for the calculation of short and long axis Lagrangian strain measures in systole and diastole. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthy controls (n = 35) and patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 10) were identified prospectively and underwent steady-state free precession (SSFP) cine imaging and SPAMM imaging using a gradient-echo sequence. A timed offline analysis of images acquired at identical horizontal long and short axis slice positions was performed using CMR-FT and dynamic tissue-tagging (CIMTag2D). Agreement between strain and strain rate (SR) values calculated using these two different methods was assessed using the Bland-Altman technique. RESULTS: Across all participants, there was good agreement between CMR-FT and CIMTag for calculation of peak systolic global circumferential strain (-22.7 ± 6.2% vs. -22.5 ± 6.9%, bias 0.2 ± 4.0%) and SR (-1.35 ± 0.42 1/s vs. -1.22 ± 0.42 1/s, bias 0.13 ± 0.33 1/s) and early diastolic global circumferential SR (1.21 ± 0.44 1/s vs. 1.07 ± 0.30 1/s, bias -0.14 ± 0.34 1/s) at the subendocardium. There was satisfactory agreement for derivation of peak systolic global longitudinal strain (-18.1 ± 5.0% vs. -16.7 ± 4.8%, bias 1.3 ± 3.8%) and SR (-1.04 ± 0.29 1/s vs. -0.95 ± 0.32 1/s, bias 0.09 ± 0.26 1/s). The weakest agreement was for early diastolic global longitudinal SR (1.10 ± 0.40 1/s vs. 0.67 ± 0.32 1/s, bias -0.42 ± 0.40 1/s), although the correlation remained significant (r = 0.42, P < 0.01). CMR-FT generated these data over four times quicker than CIMTag. CONCLUSION: There is sufficient agreement between systolic and diastolic strain measures calculated using CMR-FT and myocardial tagging for CMR-FT to be considered as a potentially feasible and rapid alternative.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Moody et al. (2014) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1bcedd27b545b111a90c99https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24623
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper