Left ventricular strain measured by feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography in chronic ischemic heart disease: an intermodality agreement study.

Q2 Medicine
Shimaa Sayed Khidr, Ahmed Abdel-Galeel, Mohamed Abdellatif, Abdulrahman Hamdan, Yehia Taha Kishk
{"title":"Left ventricular strain measured by feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography in chronic ischemic heart disease: an intermodality agreement study.","authors":"Shimaa Sayed Khidr, Ahmed Abdel-Galeel, Mohamed Abdellatif, Abdulrahman Hamdan, Yehia Taha Kishk","doi":"10.1186/s44348-026-00065-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a valuable tool for assessing left ventricular (LV) systolic function, detecting subclinical dysfunction earlier than classic ejection fraction. Two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) is widely used due to its accessibility and high temporal resolution, whereas feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance (FT-CMR) offers superior spatial resolution and reproducibility. In this study, we assess the relationships between longitudinal strain measurements obtained by 2D-STE and FT-CMR in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease (IHD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty-five patients with IHD and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 49% underwent 2D-STE and FT-CMR at least 3 months after an acute coronary event. Global and segmental longitudinal strain for all 17 myocardial segments was measured using both modalities. Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess correlation and agreement, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GLS showed a strong correlation between 2D-STE and FT-CMR (r = 0.793, P < 0.001), with a mean difference of 0.98% and limits of agreement from -3.2% to + 5.1%. Segmental strain demonstrated greater variability (r = 0.03 to 0.47), with the best agreement in mid and apical segments and greatest discrepancies at the basal level.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with IHD and reduced LVEF, GLS obtained by FT-CMR and 2D-STE showed strong correlation and acceptable overall agreement. However, the relatively wide limits of agreement and variability in segmental strain, particularly in basal regions, indicate that the two methods are not fully interchangeable for individual assessment and follow-up. Both techniques reflect similar physiological trends but differ in absolute values, requiring caution in regional strain interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":15229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13063499/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44348-026-00065-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a valuable tool for assessing left ventricular (LV) systolic function, detecting subclinical dysfunction earlier than classic ejection fraction. Two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) is widely used due to its accessibility and high temporal resolution, whereas feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance (FT-CMR) offers superior spatial resolution and reproducibility. In this study, we assess the relationships between longitudinal strain measurements obtained by 2D-STE and FT-CMR in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease (IHD).

Methods: Fifty-five patients with IHD and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 49% underwent 2D-STE and FT-CMR at least 3 months after an acute coronary event. Global and segmental longitudinal strain for all 17 myocardial segments was measured using both modalities. Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess correlation and agreement, respectively.

Results: GLS showed a strong correlation between 2D-STE and FT-CMR (r = 0.793, P < 0.001), with a mean difference of 0.98% and limits of agreement from -3.2% to + 5.1%. Segmental strain demonstrated greater variability (r = 0.03 to 0.47), with the best agreement in mid and apical segments and greatest discrepancies at the basal level.

Conclusions: In patients with IHD and reduced LVEF, GLS obtained by FT-CMR and 2D-STE showed strong correlation and acceptable overall agreement. However, the relatively wide limits of agreement and variability in segmental strain, particularly in basal regions, indicate that the two methods are not fully interchangeable for individual assessment and follow-up. Both techniques reflect similar physiological trends but differ in absolute values, requiring caution in regional strain interpretation.

用特征跟踪心脏磁共振成像和二维斑点跟踪超声心动图测量慢性缺血性心脏病左心室应变:一项多模式一致性研究。
背景:全局纵向应变(GLS)是评估左室(LV)收缩功能的一种有价值的工具,比经典射血分数更早发现亚临床功能障碍。二维散斑跟踪超声心动图(2D-STE)因其可及性和高时间分辨率而被广泛应用,而特征跟踪心脏磁共振(FT-CMR)则具有优越的空间分辨率和可重复性。在这项研究中,我们评估了2D-STE和FT-CMR在慢性缺血性心脏病(IHD)患者中获得的纵向应变测量之间的关系。方法:55例左心室射血分数(LVEF)≤49%的IHD患者在急性冠状动脉事件发生至少3个月后接受2D-STE和FT-CMR。使用两种方法测量所有17个心肌节段的整体和节段纵向应变。Pearson相关性和Bland-Altman分析分别用于评估相关性和一致性。结果:GLS在2D-STE和FT-CMR之间表现出较强的相关性(r = 0.793, P)。结论:在IHD合并LVEF降低的患者中,FT-CMR与2D-STE的GLS表现出较强的相关性,总体一致性可接受。然而,部分应变的一致性和可变性的相对较宽的限制,特别是在基底区域,表明这两种方法在个体评估和随访中不能完全互换。这两种技术反映了相似的生理趋势,但在绝对值上有所不同,在区域菌株解释时需要谨慎。
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 Cardiovascular Imaging
Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书