Top

BMC Medical Imaging

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Quantitative comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional strain measurement using MRI feature tracking in repair Fontan patients and normal child volunteers

Authors: Liwei Hu, Qian Wang, Barton P. Gregory, Rong Zhen Ouyang, Aimin Sun, Chen Guo, Tongtong Han, Yumin Zhong

Published in: BMC Medical Imaging | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

The accuracy of 2D and 3D strain analyses was evaluated by comparing strain and cardiac function parameters in Fontan repair patients and normal child volunteers.

Methods

We retrospectively enrolled 32 patients with Fontan circulation and 32 child volunteers who had undergone clinical cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) assessment of the dominant ventricle with a 1.5-Tesla MRI scanner. Global and regional strain (2D and 3D) of the dominant ventricle in both groups was assessed using CMR feature-tracking. Correlations between cardiac function and strain data were assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient values. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CoV) were determined to evaluate repeatability and agreement.

Results

The 2D GLS showed significant differences between the Fontan repair patients and volunteers (− 16.49 ± 5.00 vs. -19.49 ± 2.03; p = 0.002). The 2D GRS and 2D GCS showed no significant differences between two groups. 2D GRS: 38.96 ± 14.48 vs. 37.46 ± 7.77; 2D GCS: − 17.64 ± 5.00 vs. -16.89 ± 2.96, respectively; p > 0.05). The 3D global radial strain (GRS), global circumferential strain (GCS), and global longitudinal strain (GLS) showed significant differences between the Fontan repair patients and volunteers (3D GRS: 36.35 ± 16.72 vs. 44.96 ± 9.98; 3D GLS: − 8.86 ± 6.84 vs. -13.67 ± 2.44; 3D GCS: − 13.70 ± 7.84 vs. -18.01 ± 1.78; p < 0.05, respectively). The ejection fraction (EF) and 3D GCS were significantly associated (r = − 0.491, p = 0.004). The 3D GCS showed correlations with the indexed end-diastolic volume (EDV) (r = 0.523, p = 0.002) and indexed end-systolic volume (ESV) (r = 0.602, p < 0.001). 3D strain showed good reproducibility, with GCS showing the best inter-observer agreement (ICC = 0.87 and CoV = 5.15), followed by GLS (ICC = 0.84 and CoV = 5.36).

Conclusions

3D GCS is feasible, highly reproducible, and strongly correlated with conventional cardiac function measures. 3D GCS assessments may be useful for monitoring abnormal myocardial motion in patients with Fontan circulation.

Wilkinson JL, Anderson RH. Anatomy of functionally single ventricle. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. 2012;3:159–64 https://doi.org/10.1177/2150135118800694.CrossRef

de Leval MR. Evolution of the Fontan–Kreutzer procedure. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;13:91–5 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.pcsu.2010.01.006.CrossRef

Cheema A, Khalid A, Wimmer A, et al. Fragmented QRS and mortality risk in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010;3:339–44 https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.110.940478.CrossRef

Piran S, Veldtman G, Siu S, et al. Heart failure and ventricular dysfunction in patients with single or systemic right ventricles. Circulation. 2002;105:1189–94 https://doi.org/10.1161/hc1002.105182.CrossRef

Petko C, Voges I, Schlangen J, et al. Comparison of right ventricular deformation and dyssynchrony in patients with different subtypes of hypoplastic left heart syndrome after Fontan surgery using two-dimensional speckle tracking. Cardiol Young. 2011;21:677–83 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047951111000631.CrossRef

Mair DD, Puga FJ, Danielson GK. The Fontan procedure for tricuspid atresia: early and late results of a 25-year experience with 216 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:933–9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(00)01164-5.CrossRef

Wood PW, Choy JB, Nanda NC, et al. Left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes: it depends on the imaging method. Echocardiography. 2014;31:87–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/echo.12331.CrossRefPubMed

Gonzalez JA, Kramer CM. Role of imaging techniques for diagnosis, prognosis and management of heart failure patients: cardiac magnetic resonance. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2015;12:276–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11897-015-0261-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kilner PJ, Geva T, Kaemmerer H, et al. Recommendations for cardiovascular magnetic resonance in adults with congenital heart disease from the respective working groups of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:794–805 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehp586.CrossRef

10.

Ghelani SJ, Harrild DM, Gauvreau K, et al. Echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging based strain analysis of functional single ventricles: a study of intra-and inter-modality reproducibility. Int J Card Imaging. 2016;32:1113–20 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-016-0882-4.CrossRef

11.

Hu L, Sun A, Guo C, et al. Assessment of global and regional strain left ventricular in patients with preserved ejection fraction after Fontan operation using a tissue tracking technique. Int J Card Imaging. 2019;35:153–60 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-018-1440-z.CrossRef

12.

Berganza FM, de Alba CG, Özcelik N, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking biventricular two-dimensional and three-dimensional strains to evaluate ventricular function in children after repaired tetralogy of Fallot as compared with healthy children. Pediatr Cardiol. 2017;38:566–74 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-016-1549-6.CrossRef

13.

Pedrizzetti G, Claus P, Kilner PJ, et al. Principles of cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking and echocardiographic speckle tracking for informed clinical use. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18:51 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-016-0269-7.CrossRef

14.

Schuster A, Morton G, Hussain ST, et al. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.11.012.CrossRef

15.

Secchi F, Resta EC, Di Leo G, et al. Segmentation of cardiac magnetic resonance cine images of single ventricle: including or excluding the accessorial ventricle? Int J Card Imaging. 2014;30:1117–24 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-014-0438-4.CrossRef

16.

Edwards RM, Reddy GP, Kicska G. The functional single ventricle: how imaging guides treatment. Clin Imaging. 2016;40:1146–55 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.08.003.CrossRef

17.

Veldtman GR, Nishimoto A, Siu S, et al. The Fontan procedure in adults. Heart. 2001;86:330–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.86.3.330.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Kutty S, Rangamani S, Venkataraman J, et al. Reduced global longitudinal and radial strain with normal left ventricular ejection fraction late after effective repair of aortic coarctation: a CMR feature tracking study. Int J Card Imaging. 2013;29:141–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-012-0061-1.CrossRef

19.

Tutarel O, Orwat S, Radke RM, et al. Assessment of myocardial function using MRI-based feature tracking in adults after atrial repair of transposition of the great arteries: reference values and clinical utility. Int J Cardiol. 2016;220:246–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Satriano A, Heydari B, Narous M, et al. Clinical feasibility and validation of 3D principal strain analysis from cine MRI: comparison to 2D strain by MRI and 3D speckle tracking echocardiography. Int J Card Imaging. 2017;33:1979–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-017-1199-7.CrossRef

21.

Gatti M, Palmisano A, Faletti R, et al. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional cardiac magnetic resonance feature-tracking myocardial strain analysis in acute myocarditis patients with preserved ejection fraction. Int J Card Imaging. 2019;35:1101–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-019-01588-8.CrossRef

22.

Liu B, Dardeer AM, Moody WE, et al. Reference ranges for three-dimensional feature tracking cardiac magnetic resonance: comparison with two-dimensional methodology and relevance of age and gender. Int J Card Imaging. 2018;34:761–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-017-1277-x.CrossRef

23.

André F, Robbers-Visser D, Helling-Bakki A, et al. Quantification of myocardial deformation in children by cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking: determination of reference values for left ventricular strain and strain rate. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;19:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-016-0310-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Schuster A, Hor KN, Kowallick JT, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking: concepts and clinical applications. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(4):e004077. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.115.004077.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Liu B, Sinha A, Moody W, et al. New normal ranges and superior reproducibility of 3d myocardial strain on cardiovascular magnetic resonance-feature tracking. Heart. 2017;103(Suppl 5):A82–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311726.110.CrossRef

26.

Schuster A, Stahnke VC, Unterberg-Buchwald C, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature-tracking assessment of myocardial mechanics: inter vendor agreement and considerations regarding reproducibility. Clin Radiol. 2015;70:989–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.05.006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Schuster A, Paul M, Bettencourt N, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking for quantitative viability assessment in ischemic cardiomyopathy. Int J Cardiol. 2013;166:413–20 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.10.137.CrossRef

28.

Zhu T, Zeng W, Chen Y, et al. 2D/3D CMR tissue tracking versus CMR tagging in the assessment of spontaneous T2DM rhesus monkeys with isolated diastolic dysfunction. BMC Med Imaging. 2018;18:47 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-018-0288-y.CrossRef

29.

Amzulescu MS, De Craene M, Langet H, et al. Myocardial strain imaging: review of general principles, validation, and sources of discrepancies. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019:1–15 https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jez041.CrossRef

30.

D’Elia N, Caselli S, Kosmala W, et al. Normal global longitudinal strain: an individual patient meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;S1936-878X(19)30733–8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.07.020.PubMed

Title: Quantitative comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional strain measurement using MRI feature tracking in repair Fontan patients and normal child volunteers
Authors: Liwei Hu
Qian Wang
Barton P. Gregory
Rong Zhen Ouyang
Aimin Sun
Chen Guo
Tongtong Han
Yumin Zhong
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medical Imaging / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2342
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-020-0413-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Quantitative comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional strain measurement using MRI feature tracking in repair Fontan patients and normal child volunteers

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Correlation between spatial resolution and ball distortion rate of panoramic radiography

The role of 99mTc-MIBI SPECT/CT in patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism: comparison with 99mTc-MIBI planar scintigraphy and ultrasonography

Evaluation of a novel lower radiation computed tomography protocol for assessment of tunnel position post anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Serial MRI studies over 12 months using manual and atlas-based region of interest in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Dynamic changes of Chest CT follow-up in Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pneumonia: relationship to clinical typing

Computed tomography evaluation of extensive intravenous angioleiomyoma: a case report