التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Inter-study repeatability of circumferential strain and diastolic strain rate by CMR tagging, feature tracking and tissue tracking in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction |
| المؤلفون: |
Nazir, Sheraz A., Shetye, Abhishek M., Khan, Jamal N., Singh, Anvesha, Arnold, Jayanth R., Squire, Iain, McCann, Gerry P. |
| المصدر: |
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging ; volume 36, issue 6, page 1133-1146 ; ISSN 1569-5794 1573-0743 |
| بيانات النشر: |
Springer Science and Business Media LLC |
| سنة النشر: |
2020 |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging |
| الوصف: |
Strain assessment allows accurate evaluation of myocardial function and mechanics in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Strain using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has traditionally been assessed with tagging but limitations of this technique have led to more widespread use of alternative methods, which may be more robust. We compared the inter-study repeatability of circumferential global peak-systolic strain ( Ecc ) and peak-early diastolic strain rate (PEDSR) derived by tagging with values obtained using novel cine-based software: Feature Tracking (FT) (TomTec, Germany) and Tissue Tracking (TT) (Circle cvi 42 , Canada) in patients following STEMI. Twenty male patients (mean age 56 ± 10 years, mean infarct size 13.7 ± 7.1% of left ventricular mass) were randomised to undergo CMR 1–5 days post-STEMI at 1.5 T or 3.0 T, repeated after ten minutes at the same field strength. Ecc and PEDSR were assessed using tagging, FT and TT. Inter-study repeatability was evaluated using Bland–Altman analyses, coefficients of variation (CoV) and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Ecc (%) was significantly lower with tagging than with FT or TT at 1.5 T (− 9.5 ± 3.3 vs. − 17.5 ± 3.8 vs. −15.5 ± 5.2, respectively, p < 0.001) and 3.0 T (− 13.1 ± 1.8 vs. − 19.4 ± 2.9 vs. − 17.3 ± 2.1, respectively, p = 0.001). This was similar for PEDSR (.s −1 ): 1.5 T (0.6 ± 0.2 vs. 1.5 ± 0.4 vs. 1.0 ± 0.4, for tagging, FT and TT respectively, p < 0.001) and 3.0 T (0.6 ± 0.2 vs. 1.5 ± 0.3 vs. 0.9 ± 0.3, respectively, p < 0.001). Inter-study repeatability for Ecc at 1.5 T was good for tagging and excellent for FT and TT: CoV 16.7%, 6.38%, and 8.65%, respectively. Repeatability for Ecc at 3.0 T was good for all three techniques: CoV 14.4%, 11.2%, and 13.0%, respectively. However, repeatability of PEDSR was generally lower than that for Ecc at 1.5 T (CoV 15.1%, 13.1%, and 34.0% for tagging, FT and TT, respectively) and 3.0 T (CoV 23.0%, 18.6%, and 26.2%, respectively). Following STEMI, Ecc and PEDSR ... |
| نوع الوثيقة: |
article in journal/newspaper |
| اللغة: |
English |
| DOI: |
10.1007/s10554-020-01806-8 |
| DOI: |
10.1007/s10554-020-01806-8.pdf |
| DOI: |
10.1007/s10554-020-01806-8/fulltext.html |
| الإتاحة: |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-020-01806-8Test |
| حقوق: |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0Test ; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0Test |
| رقم الانضمام: |
edsbas.636C2FD2 |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
BASE |
