Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-06-2021 | Cardiac

Quantification of myocardial strain assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking in healthy subjects—influence of segmentation and analysis software

Authors: Carolin Lim, Edyta Blaszczyk, Leili Riazy, Stephanie Wiesemann, Johannes Schüler, Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, Jeanette Schulz-Menger

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2021

Abstract

Objectives

Quantification of myocardial deformation by feature tracking is of growing interest in cardiovascular magnetic resonance. It allows the assessment of regional myocardial function based on cine images. However, image acquisition, post-processing, and interpretation are not standardized. We aimed to assess the influence of segmentation procedure such as slice selection and different types of analysis software on values and quantification of myocardial strain in healthy adults.

Methods

Healthy volunteers were retrospectively analyzed. Post-processing was performed using CVI⁴² and TomTec. Longitudinal and radial_{Long axis (LAX)} strain were quantified using 4-chamber-view, 3-chamber-view, and 2-chamber-view. Circumferential and radial_{Short axis (SAX)} strain were assessed in basal, midventricular, and apical short-axis views and using full coverage. Global and segmental strain values were compared to each other regarding their post-processing approach and analysis software package.

Results

We screened healthy volunteers studied at 1.5 or 3.0 T and included 67 (age 44.3 ± 16.3 years, 31 females). Circumferential and radial_SAX strain values were different between a full coverage approach vs. three short slices (− 17.6 ± 1.8% vs. − 19.2 ± 2.3% and 29.1 ± 4.8% vs. 34.6 ± 7.1%). Different analysis software calculated significantly different strain values. Within the same vendor, different field strengths (− 17.0 ± 2.1% at 1.5 T vs. − 17.0 ± 1.7% at 3 T, p = 0.845) did not influence the calculated global longitudinal strain (GLS), and were similar in gender (− 17.4 ± 2.0% in females vs. − 16.6 ± 1.8% in males, p = 0.098). Circumferential and radial strain were different in females and males (circumferential strain − 18.2 ± 1.7% vs. − 17.1 ± 1.8%, p = 0.029 and radial strain 30.7 ± 4.7% vs. 27.8 ± 4.6%, p = 0.047).

Conclusions

Myocardial deformation assessed by feature tracking depends on segmentation procedure and type of analysis software. Circumferential_SAX and radial_SAX depend on the number of slices used for feature tracking analysis. As known from other imaging modalities, GLS seems to be the most stable parameter. During follow-up studies, standardized conditions should be warranted.

Trial registration Retrospectively registered

Key Points

• Myocardial deformation assessed by feature tracking depends on the segmentation procedure.

• Global myocardial strain values differ significantly among vendors.

• Standardization in post-processing using CMR feature tracking is essential.

Available only for authorised users

Barreiro-Perez M, Curione D, Symons R, Claus P, Voigt JU, Bogaert J (2018) Left ventricular global myocardial strain assessment comparing the reproducibility of four commercially available CMR-feature tracking algorithms. Eur Radiol 28:5137–5147PubMedCrossRef

Plana JC, Galderisi M, Barac A et al (2014) Expert consensus for multimodality imaging evaluation of adult patients during and after cancer therapy: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 15:1063–1093PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Celutkiene J, Plymen CM, Flachskampf FA et al (2018) Innovative imaging methods in heart failure: a shifting paradigm in cardiac assessment. Position statement on behalf of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail 20:1615–1633PubMedCrossRef

Schuster A, Paul M, Bettencourt N et al (2013) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking for quantitative viability assessment in ischemic cardiomyopathy. Int J Cardiol 166:413–420CrossRefPubMed

Buss SJ, Emami M, Mereles D et al (2012) Longitudinal left ventricular function for prediction of survival in systemic light-chain amyloidosis: incremental value compared with clinical and biochemical markers. J Am Coll Cardiol 60:1067–1076PubMedCrossRef

Kraigher-Krainer E, Shah AM, Gupta DK et al (2014) Impaired systolic function by strain imaging in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol 63:447–456PubMedCrossRef

Mangion K, Carrick D, Carberry J et al (2019) Circumferential strain predicts major adverse cardiovascular events following an acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Radiology 290:329–337PubMedCrossRef

Maret E, Todt T, Brudin L et al (2009) Functional measurements based on feature tracking of cine magnetic resonance images identify left ventricular segments with myocardial scar. Cardiovasc Ultrasound 7:53PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Mor-Avi V, Lang RM, Badano LP et al (2011) Current and evolving echocardiographic techniques for the quantitative evaluation of cardiac mechanics: ASE/EAE consensus statement on methodology and indications endorsed by the Japanese Society of Echocardiography. Eur J Echocardiogr 12:167–205PubMedCrossRef

10.

Cho GY, Marwick TH, Kim HS, Kim MK, Hong KS, Oh DJ (2009) Global 2-dimensional strain as a new prognosticator in patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:618–624PubMedCrossRef

11.

Illman JE, Arunachalam SP, Arani A et al (2018) MRI feature tracking strain is prognostic for all-cause mortality in AL amyloidosis. Amyloid 25:101–108PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

12.

Reisner SA, Lysyansky P, Agmon Y, Mutlak D, Lessick J, Friedman Z (2004) Global longitudinal strain: a novel index of left ventricular systolic function. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 17:630–633PubMedCrossRef

13.

Romano S, Judd RM, Kim RJ et al (2018) Feature-tracking global longitudinal strain predicts death in a multicenter population of patients with ischemic and nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy incremental to ejection fraction and late gadolinium enhancement. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 11:1419–1429PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

14.

Vigneault DM, Yang E, Jensen PJ et al (2019) Left ventricular strain is abnormal in preclinical and overt hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: cardiac MR feature tracking. Radiology 290:640–648PubMedCrossRef

15.

Voigt JU, Pedrizzetti G, Lysyansky P et al (2015) Definitions for a common standard for 2D speckle tracking echocardiography: consensus document of the EACVI/ASE/Industry Task Force to standardize deformation imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 16:1–11PubMedCrossRef

16.

Pedrizzetti G, Claus P, Kilner PJ, Nagel E (2016) Principles of cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking and echocardiographic speckle tracking for informed clinical use. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 18:51PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

17.

Neizel M, Lossnitzer D, Korosoglou G et al (2009) Strain-encoded (SENC) magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate regional heterogeneity of myocardial strain in healthy volunteers: comparison with conventional tagging. J Magn Reson Imaging 29:99–105PubMedCrossRef

18.

Osman NF, Sampath S, Atalar E, Prince JL (2001) Imaging longitudinal cardiac strain on short-axis images using strain-encoded MRI. Magn Reson Med 46:324–334PubMedCrossRef

19.

Aletras AH, Ding S, Balaban RS, Wen H (1999) DENSE: displacement encoding with stimulated echoes in cardiac functional MRI. J Magn Reson 137:247–252PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

20.

Cao JJ, Ngai N, Duncanson L, Cheng J, Gliganic K, Chen Q (2018) A comparison of both DENSE and feature tracking techniques with tagging for the cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of myocardial strain. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 20:26PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

21.

Zerhouni EA, Parish DM, Rogers WJ, Yang A, Shapiro EP (1988) Human heart: tagging with MR imaging--a method for noninvasive assessment of myocardial motion. Radiology 169:59–63PubMedCrossRef

22.

Altiok E, Neizel M, Tiemann S et al (2013) Layer-specific analysis of myocardial deformation for assessment of infarct transmurality: comparison of strain-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance with 2D speckle tracking echocardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 14:570–578PubMedCrossRef

23.

Hor KN, Baumann R, Pedrizzetti G et al (2011) Magnetic resonance derived myocardial strain assessment using feature tracking. J Vis Exp. https://doi.org/10.3791/2356

24.

Blaszczyk E, Topper A, Schmacht L et al (2017) Influence of spatial resolution and contrast agent dosage on myocardial T1 relaxation times. MAGMA 30:85–91PubMedCrossRef

25.

Schmacht L, Traber J, Grieben U et al (2016) Cardiac involvement in myotonic dystrophy type 2 patients with preserved ejection fraction: detection by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 9(7):e004615. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.115.004615

26.

von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, Prothmann M, Dieringer MA et al (2013) Myocardial T1 and T2 mapping at 3 T: reference values, influencing factors and implications. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 15:53CrossRef

27.

von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, Schuler J, Doganguzel S et al (2017) Detection and monitoring of acute myocarditis applying quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 10(2):e005242. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.116.005242

28.

Wassmuth R, Prothmann M, Utz W et al (2013) Variability and homogeneity of cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial T2-mapping in volunteers compared to patients with edema. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 15:27PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

29.

Funk S, Kermer J, Doganguezel S, Schwenke C, von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, Schulz-Menger J (2018) Quantification of the left atrium applying cardiovascular magnetic resonance in clinical routine. Scand Cardiovasc J 52:85–92PubMedCrossRef

30.

Schulz-Menger J, Bluemke DA, Bremerich J et al (2020) Standardized image interpretation and post-processing in cardiovascular magnetic resonance - 2020 update: Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR): board of trustees task force on standardized post-processing. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 22:19PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

31.

Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V et al (2002) Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation 105:539–542CrossRefPubMed

32.

Schuster A, Morton G, Hussain ST et al (2013) The intra-observer reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking strain assessment is independent of field strength. Eur J Radiol 82:296–301PubMedCrossRef

33.

Morton G, Schuster A, Jogiya R, Kutty S, Beerbaum P, Nagel E (2012) Inter-study reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 14:43PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

34.

Maceira AM, Tuset-Sanchis L, Lopez-Garrido M et al (2018) Feasibility and reproducibility of feature-tracking-based strain and strain rate measures of the left ventricle in different diseases and genders. J Magn Reson Imaging 47:1415–1425PubMedCrossRef

35.

Gertz RJ, Lange T, Kowallick JT et al (2018) Inter-vendor reproducibility of left and right ventricular cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking. PLoS One 13:e0193746PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

36.

Augustine D, Lewandowski AJ, Lazdam M et al (2013) Global and regional left ventricular myocardial deformation measures by magnetic resonance feature tracking in healthy volunteers: comparison with tagging and relevance of gender. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 15:8PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

37.

Farsalinos KE, Daraban AM, Unlu S, Thomas JD, Badano LP, Voigt JU (2015) Head-to-head comparison of global longitudinal strain measurements among nine different vendors: the EACVI/ASE inter-vendor comparison study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 28(1171–1181):e1172

38.

Liu B, Dardeer AM, Moody WE et al (2018) Reference ranges for three-dimensional feature tracking cardiac magnetic resonance: comparison with two-dimensional methodology and relevance of age and gender. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 34:761–775PubMed

39.

Taylor RJ, Moody WE, Umar F et al (2015) Myocardial strain measurement with feature-tracking cardiovascular magnetic resonance: normal values. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 16:871–881PubMedCrossRef

40.

Andre F, Steen H, Matheis P et al (2015) Age- and gender-related normal left ventricular deformation assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 17:25PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

41.

Peng J, Zhao X, Zhao L et al (2018) Normal values of myocardial deformation assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking in a healthy Chinese population: a multicenter study. Front Physiol 9:1181PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

42.

Mangion K, Burke NMM, McComb C, Carrick D, Woodward R, Berry C (2019) Feature-tracking myocardial strain in healthy adults- a magnetic resonance study at 3.0 tesla. Sci Rep 9:3239PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

43.

Backhaus SJ, Metschies G, Billing M et al (2019) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging feature tracking: impact of training on observer performance and reproducibility. PLoS One 14:e0210127PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

44.

Feisst A, Kuetting DLR, Dabir D et al (2018) Influence of observer experience on cardiac magnetic resonance strain measurements using feature tracking and conventional tagging. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc 18:46–51PubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Quantification of myocardial strain assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking in healthy subjects—influence of segmentation and analysis software
Authors: Carolin Lim
Edyta Blaszczyk
Leili Riazy
Stephanie Wiesemann
Johannes Schüler
Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff
Jeanette Schulz-Menger
Publication date: 01-06-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 6/2021
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07539-5

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Quantification of myocardial strain assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking in healthy subjects—influence of segmentation and analysis software

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2021

Use of dual-energy CT for renal mass assessment

Letter to the Editor regarding “Comparison of image quality between split-filter twin beam dual energy and single energy images in abdominal CT”

Excessive z-axis scan coverage in body CT: frequency and causes

Short-term adverse remodeling progression in asymptomatic aortic stenosis

Bladder cancer: do we need contrast injection for MRI assessment of muscle invasion? A prospective multi-reader VI-RADS approach

Static 18F-FET PET and DSC-PWI based on hybrid PET/MR for the prediction of gliomas defined by IDH and 1p/19q status