Feature tracking compared with tissue tagging measurements of segmental strain by cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Albert C van Rossum¹  Cornelis P Allaart¹  Martijn W Heymans⁴  Ahmet Güçlü²  Tjeerd Germans³  LiNa Wu¹ 

[1] Institute for Cardiovascular Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Interuniversity Cardiology Institute of the Netherlands (ICIN), Utrecht, The Netherlands;Department of Cardiology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

关键词: Myocardial feature-tracking;    Tissue tagging;    Myocardial wall motion;    Cardiovascular magnetic resonance;   

Others  :  801867
DOI  :  10.1186/1532-429X-16-10

 received in 2013-08-12, accepted in 2014-01-13,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Left ventricular segmental wall motion analysis is important for clinical decision making in cardiac diseases. Strain analysis with myocardial tissue tagging is the non-invasive gold standard for quantitative assessment, however, it is time-consuming. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking (CMR-FT) can rapidly perform strain analysis, because it can be employed with standard CMR cine-imaging. The aim is to validate segmental peak systolic circumferential strain (peak SCS) and time to peak systolic circumferential strain (T2P-SCS) analysed by CMR-FT against tissue tagging, and determine its intra and inter-observer variability.

Methods

Patients in whom both cine CMR and tissue tagging has been performed were selected. CMR-FT analysis was done using endocardial (CMR-FT_endo) and mid-wall contours (CMR-FT_mid). The Intra Class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Pearson correlation were calculated.

Results

10 healthy volunteers, 10 left bundle branch block (LBBB) and 10 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients were selected. With CMR-FT all 480 segments were analyzable and with tissue tagging 464 segments.

Significant differences in mean peak SCS values of the total study group were present between CMR-FT_endo and tissue tagging (-23.8 ± 9.9% vs -13.4 ± 3.3%, p < 0.001). Differences were smaller between CMR-FT_mid and tissue tagging (-16.4 ± 6.1% vs -13.4 ± 3.3%, p = 0.001). The ICC of the mean peak SCS of the total study group between CMR-FT_endo and tissue tagging was low (0.19 (95%-CI-0.10-0.49), p = 0.02). Comparable results were seen between CMR-FT_mid and tissue tagging. In LBBB patients, mean T2P-SCS values measured with CMR-FT_endo and CMR-FT_mid were 418 ± 66 ms, 454 ± 60 ms, which were longer than with tissue tagging, 376 ± 55 ms, both p < 0.05. ICC of the mean T2P-SCS between CMR-FT_endo and tissue tagging was 0.64 (95%-CI-0.36-0.81), p < 0.001, this was better in the healthy volunteers and LBBB group, whereas the ICC between CMR-FT_mid and tissue tagging was lower.

The intra and inter-observer agreement of segmental peak SCS with CMR-FT_mid was lower compared with tissue tagging; similar results were seen for segmental T2P-SCS.

Conclusions

The intra and inter-observer agreement of segmental peak SCS and T2P-SCS is substantially lower with CMR-FT_mid compared with tissue tagging. Therefore, current segmental CMR-FT_mid techniques are not yet applicable for clinical and research purposes.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Wu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cicala S, de SG, Roman MJ, Best LG, Lee ET, Wang W, Welty TK, Galloway JM, Howard BV, Devereux RB: Prevalence and prognostic significance of wall-motion abnormalities in adults without clinically recognized cardiovascular disease: the strong heart study. Circulation 2007, 116:143-150.
• [2]Miyatake K, Yamagishi M, Tanaka N, Uematsu M, Yamazaki N, Mine Y, Sano A, Hirama M: New method for evaluating left ventricular wall motion by color-coded tissue Doppler imaging: in vitro and in vivo studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995, 25:717-724.
• [3]Vaduganathan P, He ZX, Vick GW III, Mahmarian JJ, Verani MS: Evaluation of left ventricular wall motion, volumes, and ejection fraction by gated myocardial tomography with technetium 99 m-labeled tetrofosmin: a comparison with cine magnetic resonance imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 1999, 6:3-10.
• [4]Gotte MJ, Germans T, Russel IK, Zwanenburg JJ, Marcus JT, van Rossum AC, van Veldhuisen DJ: Myocardial strain and torsion quantified by cardiovascular magnetic resonance tissue tagging: studies in normal and impaired left ventricular function. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 48:2002-2011.
• [5]Karamitsos TD, Francis JM, Myerson S, Selvanayagam JB, Neubauer S: The role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009, 54:1407-1424.
• [6]Paetsch I, Foll D, Kaluza A, Luechinger R, Stuber M, Bornstedt A, Wahl A, Fleck E, Nagel E: Magnetic resonance stress tagging in ischemic heart disease. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2005, 288:H2708-H2714.
• [7]Reichek N: MRI myocardial tagging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999, 10:609-616.
• [8]Axel L, Dougherty L: Heart wall motion: improved method of spatial modulation of magnetization for MR imaging. Radiology 1989, 172:349-350.
• [9]Hor KN, Baumann R, Pedrizzetti G, Tonti G, Gottliebson WM, Taylor M, Benson W, Mazur W: Magnetic resonance derived myocardial strain assessment using feature tracking. J Vis Exp 2011, 48:2356-2361.
• [10]Maret E, Todt T, Brudin L, Nylander E, Swahn E, Ohlsson JL, Engvall JE: Functional measurements based on feature tracking of cine magnetic resonance images identify left ventricular segments with myocardial scar. Cardiovasc Ultrasound 2009, 7:53. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Hor KN, Gottliebson WM, Carson C, Wash E, Cnota J, Fleck R, Wansapura J, Klimeczek P, Al-Khalidi HR, Chung ES, Benson DW, Mazur W: Comparison of magnetic resonance feature tracking for strain calculation with harmonic phase imaging analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010, 3:144-151.
• [12]Morton G, Schuster A, Jogiya R, Kutty S, Beerbaum P, Nagel E: Inter-study reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2012, 14:43. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Zwanenburg JJ, Kuijer JP, Marcus JT, Heethaar RM: Steady-state free precession with myocardial tagging: CSPAMM in a single breathhold. Magn Reson Med 2003, 49:722-730.
• [14]Wu MT, Tseng WY, Su MY, Liu CP, Chiou KR, Wedeen VJ, Reese TG, Yang CF: Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging mapping the fiber architecture remodeling in human myocardium after infarction: correlation with viability and wall motion. Circulation 2006, 114:1036-1045.
• [15]Osman NF, Kerwin WS, McVeigh ER, Prince JL: Cardiac motion tracking using CINE harmonic phase (HARP) magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 1999, 42:1048-1060.
• [16]Tecelao SR, Zwanenburg JJ, Kuijer JP, Marcus JT: Extended harmonic phase tracking of myocardial motion: improved coverage of myocardium and its effect on strain results. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006, 23:682-690.
• [17]de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL: Measurement in Medicine. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
• [18]Rodriguez LM, Timmermans C, Nabar A, Beatty G, Wellens HJ: Variable patterns of septal activation in patients with left bundle branch block and heart failure. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2003, 14:135-141.
• [19]Vassallo JA, Cassidy DM, Marchlinski FE, Buxton AE, Waxman HL, Doherty JU, Josephson ME: Endocardial activation of left bundle branch block. Circulation 1984, 69:914-923.
• [20]Serri K, Reant P, Lafitte M, Berhouet M, Le B,V, Roudaut R, Lafitte S: Global and regional myocardial function quantification by two-dimensional strain: application in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47:1175-1181.
• [21]Sun JP, Stewart WJ, Yang XS, Donnell RO, Leon AR, Felner JM, Thomas JD, Merlino JD: Differentiation of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and cardiac amyloidosis from other causes of ventricular wall thickening by two-dimensional strain imaging echocardiography. Am J Cardiol 2009, 103:411-415.
• [22]Harrild DM, Han Y, Geva T, Zhou J, Marcus E, Powell AJ: Comparison of cardiac MRI tissue tracking and myocardial tagging for assessment of regional ventricular strain. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2012, 28:2009-2018.
• [23]Schuster A, Morton G, Hussain ST, Jogiya R, Kutty S, Asrress KN, Makowski MR, Bigalke B, Perera D, Beerbaum P, Nagel E: The intra-observer reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking strain assessment is independent of field strength. Eur J Radiol 2013, 82:296-301.