Intervendor Variability of Two-Dimensional Strain Using Vendor-Specific and Vendor-Independent Software
Intervendor Variability of Two-Dimensional Strain Using Vendor-Specific and Vendor-Independent Software
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.echo.2015.01.021
复制
发表时间：
2015-06-01
影响因子：
6.5
通讯作者：
Otsuji, Yutaka
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nagata, Yasufumi;Takeuchi, Masaaki;Otsuji, Yutaka
背景资料：尽管二维（2D）应变被广泛用于评估左心室力学，但即使对于相同的受试者，从供应商特定的2D斑点追踪软件得出的应变值也是不同的，因此不可互换。本研究的目的是检验以下假设：独立于供应商的软件将在2D应变测量之间产生较低的供应商间变异性，并克服这一限制。使用三种类型的超声机器中的两种获得两组三个心尖图像（GE、Philips和Toshiba）（26例受试者中GE与Philips，31例受试者中Philips与Toshiba，24例受试者中GE与Toshiba）。二维全球纵向应变（GLS）测量使用供应商特定的软件和两个供应商独立的软件包（TomTec和Epperion）在每组心尖图像，GLS值进行了直接比较与another.Results：供应商特定的软件的升级产生了不同的GLS值与以前版本的软件相比。使用供应商特定软件测定的GLS值之间的相关性显示出广泛的r值（r = 0.23、r = 0.42和r = 0.72），除一次比较外，具有显著偏倚。独立于供应商的软件提供了适度的相关性（TomTec：r = 0.65、r = 0.65和r = 0.77; Epperiment：r = 0.65、r = 0.74和r = 0.77），具有一致性限度（范围，+/- 3%至+/- 4.5%），不可忽略。尽管卖主-独立的2D应变软件提供了从相同受试者获得的超声图像的GLS值之间的中度相关性，不同的供应商，相对较大的协议限制仍然是一个相关的问题。这些结果表明，相同的超声机和相同的二维斑点跟踪软件应用于纵向分析的应变值在相同的主题和横截面研究。
Background: Although two-dimensional (2D) strain is widely used to assess left ventricular mechanics, the strain values derived from vendor-specific 2D speckle-tracking software are different even for the same subjects and are therefore not interchangeable. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that vendor-independent software would produce lower intervendor variability between 2D strain measurements and overcome this limitation.Methods: Two sets of three apical images were acquired using two of three types of ultrasound machines (GE, Philips, and Toshiba) in 81 healthy volunteers (GE vs Philips in 26 subjects, Philips vs Toshiba in 31 subjects, and GE vs Toshiba in 24 subjects). Two-dimensional global longitudinal strain (GLS) was measured using vendor-specific software and two vendor-independent software packages (TomTec and Epsilon) in each set of apical images, and GLS values were directly compared with one another.Results: The upgrades of vendor-specific software yielded different values of GLS compared with the previous versions of the software. The correlations between the GLS values determined using vendor-specific software exhibited a wide range of r values (r = 0.23, r = 0.42, and r = 0.72), with significant bias, with the exception of one comparison. The vendor-independent software provided modest degrees of correlation (TomTec: r = 0.65, r = 0.65, and r = 0.77; Epsilon: r = 0.65, r = 0.74, and r = 0.77), with limits of agreement (range, +/- 3% to +/- 4.5%) that were not negligible.Conclusions: Although the vendor-independent 2D strain software provided moderate correlations between the GLS values of the ultrasound images obtained from the same subjects using different vendors, relatively large limits of agreement remain a relevant problem. These results suggest that the same ultrasound machine and the same 2D speckle-tracking software should be used for longitudinal analysis of strain values in the same subjects and for cross-sectional studies.