Quantification of left ventricular myocardial strain: Comparison between MRI tagging, MRI feature tracking, and ultrasound speckle tracking

Yentl Brandt,Jolijn M. Lubrecht,Bouke P. Adriaans,Jean‐Paul Aben,Suzanne C. Gerretsen,Chahinda Ghossein‐Doha,Marc E. A. Spaanderman,Frits W. Prinzen,M. Eline Kooi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.5164
2024-04-27
NMR in Biomedicine
Abstract:Longitudinal/circumferential strain parameters were assessed in LBBB patients (n = 22), formerly preeclamptic women (n = 17), and control women (n = 3) using MRI tagging (MRI‐TAG), MRI feature tracking (MRI‐FT), and ultrasound speckle tracking (USST). Global peak strain (ICC = 0.71‐0.83, p < 0.01) and time to peak strain (ICC = 0.56‐0.83): moderate‐to‐good agreemenr without bias. Segmental peak strain (ICC = 0.620.77, p < 0.01) and time to peak strain (ICC = 0.580.74, p < 0.01): moderatetogood agreement (exception: lateral longitudinal peak strain, ICC = 0.23), with biases in peak strain. Ultrasound speckle tracking is frequently used to quantify myocardial strain, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) feature tracking is rapidly gaining interest. Our aim is to validate cardiac MRI feature tracking by comparing it with the gold standard method (i.e., MRI tagging) in healthy subjects and patients. Furthermore, we aim to perform an indirect validation by comparing ultrasound speckle tracking with MRI feature tracking. Forty‐two subjects (17 formerly preeclamptic women, three healthy women, and 22 left bundle branch block patients of both sexes) received 3‐T cardiac MRI and echocardiography. Cine and tagged MRI, and B‐mode ultrasound images, were acquired. Intrapatient global and segmental left ventricular circumferential (MRI tagging vs. MRI feature tracking) and longitudinal (MRI feature tracking vs. ultrasound speckle tracking) peak strain and time to peak strain were compared between the three techniques. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ( 0.75–0.90 = good, > 0.90 = excellent) and Bland–Altman analysis were used to assess correlation and bias; p less than 0.05 indicates a significant ICC or bias. Global peak strain parameters showed moderate‐to‐good correlations between methods (ICC = 0.71–0.83, p
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,biophysics,spectroscopy
What problem does this paper attempt to address?