Normal Values for Atrial Deformation Measured by Feature-Tracking Cardiac MRI: A Meta-Analysis

IF 3.3 2区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Pub Date : 2024-05-28 DOI:10.1002/jmri.29465

Qiuyi Cai MD, Zhengkai Zhao MD, Jin Gao MD, Jian Liu MD, Jianlin Li MD, Xin Peng MD, Hang Chen MD, PhD

{"title":"Normal Values for Atrial Deformation Measured by Feature-Tracking Cardiac MRI: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Qiuyi Cai MD, Zhengkai Zhao MD, Jin Gao MD, Jian Liu MD, Jianlin Li MD, Xin Peng MD, Hang Chen MD, PhD","doi":"10.1002/jmri.29465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>A consensus on normal atrial deformation measurements by feature-tracking cardiac MRI remained absent.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Provide reference ranges for atrial strain parameters in normal subjects, evaluating the influence of field strength and analysis software on the measurements.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Study Type</h3>\n \n <p>Meta-analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Population</h3>\n \n <p>2708 subjects from 42 studies undergoing cardiac MRI.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Assessment</h3>\n \n <p>A systematic search was conducted from database (PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE) inception through August 2023. The random-effects model was used to pool the means of biatrial strain parameters. Heterogeneity and clinical variable effects were assessed. Strain measurements among different field strengths and analysis software were compared.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Statistical Tests</h3>\n \n <p>The inverse-variance method, Cochrane Q statistic, and <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> value, meta-regression analysis, and ANOVA were used; <i>P</i> < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The pooled means of left atrial (LA) total strain (εs), passive strain (εe), and active strain (εa) were 37.46%, 22.73%, and 16.24%, respectively, and the pooled means of LA total strain rate (SRs), passive strain rate (SRe), and active strain rate (SRa) were 1.66, −1.95, and −1.83, indicating significant heterogeneity. The pooled means of right atrial (RA) εs, εe, and εa were 44.87%, 26.05%, and 18.83%. RA SRs, SRe, and SRa were 1.66, −1.95, and −1.83, respectively. The meta-regression identified age as significantly associated with LA εs, εe and SRe, field strength was associated with LA SRa (all <i>P <</i> 0.05). ANOVA revealed differences in LA εa and SRa among different analysis software and in LA εs and all LA strain rates (all <i>P</i> < 0.05) among field strengths. No significant differences were identified in RA strain across analysis software (RA strain: <i>P</i> = 0.145–0.749; RA strain rates: <i>P</i> = 0.073–0.744) and field strengths (RA strain: <i>P</i> = 0.641–0.794; RA strain rates: <i>P</i> = 0.204–0.458).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This study demonstrated the pooled reference values of biatrial strain. Age, analysis software, and field strength were attributed to differences in LA strain, whereas RA strain showed consistency across different field strengths and analysis software. Limited study subjects may account for the absence of influence on RA strain.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\n \n <p>1.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Technical Efficacy</h3>\n \n <p>Stage 5.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16140,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging","volume":"61 2","pages":"882-898"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmri.29465","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

A consensus on normal atrial deformation measurements by feature-tracking cardiac MRI remained absent.

Purpose

Provide reference ranges for atrial strain parameters in normal subjects, evaluating the influence of field strength and analysis software on the measurements.

Study Type

Meta-analysis.

Population

2708 subjects from 42 studies undergoing cardiac MRI.

Assessment

A systematic search was conducted from database (PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE) inception through August 2023. The random-effects model was used to pool the means of biatrial strain parameters. Heterogeneity and clinical variable effects were assessed. Strain measurements among different field strengths and analysis software were compared.

Statistical Tests

The inverse-variance method, Cochrane Q statistic, and I² value, meta-regression analysis, and ANOVA were used; P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The pooled means of left atrial (LA) total strain (εs), passive strain (εe), and active strain (εa) were 37.46%, 22.73%, and 16.24%, respectively, and the pooled means of LA total strain rate (SRs), passive strain rate (SRe), and active strain rate (SRa) were 1.66, −1.95, and −1.83, indicating significant heterogeneity. The pooled means of right atrial (RA) εs, εe, and εa were 44.87%, 26.05%, and 18.83%. RA SRs, SRe, and SRa were 1.66, −1.95, and −1.83, respectively. The meta-regression identified age as significantly associated with LA εs, εe and SRe, field strength was associated with LA SRa (all P < 0.05). ANOVA revealed differences in LA εa and SRa among different analysis software and in LA εs and all LA strain rates (all P < 0.05) among field strengths. No significant differences were identified in RA strain across analysis software (RA strain: P = 0.145–0.749; RA strain rates: P = 0.073–0.744) and field strengths (RA strain: P = 0.641–0.794; RA strain rates: P = 0.204–0.458).

Data Conclusion

This study demonstrated the pooled reference values of biatrial strain. Age, analysis software, and field strength were attributed to differences in LA strain, whereas RA strain showed consistency across different field strengths and analysis software. Limited study subjects may account for the absence of influence on RA strain.

Level of Evidence

Technical Efficacy

Stage 5.

查看原文本刊更多论文

通过特征追踪心脏磁共振成像测量心房变形的正常值：元分析。

背景：目的：提供正常受试者心房应变参数的参考范围，评估场强和分析软件对测量结果的影响：研究对象：42 项研究中接受心脏磁共振成像的 2708 名受试者：从数据库（PubMed、Web of Science、ScienceDirect 和 EMBASE）开始到 2023 年 8 月进行了系统检索。采用随机效应模型汇集双心房应变参数的平均值。对异质性和临床变量效应进行了评估。比较了不同场强和分析软件的应变测量结果：采用逆方差法、Cochrane Q 统计量和 I2 值、元回归分析和方差分析；P 结果：左心房总应变（εs）、被动应变（εe）和主动应变（εa）的集合均值分别为37.46%、22.73%和16.24%，左心房总应变率（SRs）、被动应变率（SRe）和主动应变率（SRa）的集合均值分别为1.66、-1.95和-1.83，表明存在显著异质性。右心房（RA）εs、εe和εa的汇总平均值分别为44.87%、26.05%和18.83%。RA SRs、SRe 和 SRa 分别为 1.66、-1.95 和-1.83。元回归发现年龄与 LA εs、εe 和 SRe 显著相关，场强与 LA SRa 相关（所有 P 数据均为结论）：本研究证明了双心房应变的集合参考值。年龄、分析软件和场强是造成 LA 应变差异的原因，而 RA 应变在不同场强和分析软件中表现出一致性。有限的研究对象可能是 RA 应变不受影响的原因：1：技术功效：证据级别：1：技术功效：第 5 阶段。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 医学-核医学

CiteScore

9.70

自引率

6.80%

发文量

494

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： The Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (JMRI) is an international journal devoted to the timely publication of basic and clinical research, educational and review articles, and other information related to the diagnostic applications of magnetic resonance.