Head-to-Head Comparison of Global Longitudinal Strain Measurements among Nine Different Vendors The EACVI/ASE Inter-Vendor Comparison Study
Head-to-Head Comparison of Global Longitudinal Strain Measurements among Nine Different Vendors The EACVI/ASE Inter-Vendor Comparison Study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.echo.2015.06.011
复制
发表时间：
2015-10-01
影响因子：
6.5
通讯作者：
Voigt, Jens-Uwe
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Farsalinos, Konstantinos E.;Daraban, Ana M.;Voigt, Jens-Uwe
背景资料：这项研究计划由EACVI/ASE/行业工作组，以标准化变形成像（1）测试斑点跟踪全球纵向应变（GLS）测量不同厂商之间的变异性和（2）比较GLS测量变异性与传统的超声心动图parameters.Methods：六十二名志愿者进行了研究，使用超声系统从七个制造商。每名志愿者都由同一名超声医师在所有机器上进行检查。观察者间和观察者内变异性在真实的重测设置中确定。采集常规超声心动图参数进行比较。使用各自制造商和两个仅软件供应商的软件包，测量了内分泌GLS，因为它是所有制造商可以提供的唯一GLS参数。结果：GLS（AV）绝对值为18.0%~21.5%，GLS 4（CH）绝对值为17.9%~21.4%。供应商之间GLS（AV）的绝对差异高达3.7%应变单位（P <.001）。GLS（AV）和GLS 4（CH）的观察者间相对平均误差分别为5.4%~8.6%和6.2%~11.0%，而观察者内相对平均误差分别为4.9%~7.3%和7.2%~11.3%。这些错误低于左心室射血分数和大多数其他传统的超声心动图parameters.Conclusion：GLS测量的重现性好，在许多情况下，上级传统的超声心动图测量。在进行系列研究时，应考虑供应商之间微小但具有统计学意义的差异，并反映正在进行的标准化工作的参考点。
Background: This study was planned by the EACVI/ASE/Industry Task Force to Standardize Deformation Imaging to (1) test the variability of speckle-tracking global longitudinal strain(GLS) measurements among different vendors and (2) compare GLS measurement variability with conventional echocardiographic parameters.Methods: Sixty-two volunteers were studied using ultrasound systems from seven manufacturers. Each volunteer was examined by the same sonographer on all machines. Inter- and intraobserver variability was determined in a true test-retest setting. Conventional echocardiographic parameters were acquired for comparison. Using the software packages of the respective manufacturer and of two software-only vendors, endocardial GLS was measured because it was the only GLS parameter that could be provided by all manufactures. We compared GLS(AV) (the average from the three apical views) and GLS4(CH) (measured in the four-chamber view) measurements among vendors and with the conventional echocardiographic parameters.Results: Absolute values of GLS(AV) ranged from 18.0% to 21.5%, while GLS4(CH) ranged from 17.9% to 21.4%. The absolute difference between vendors for GLS(AV) was up to 3.7% strain units (P < .001). The interobserver relative mean errors were 5.4% to 8.6% for GLS(AV) and 6.2% to 11.0% for GLS4(CH), while the intraobserver relative mean errors were 4.9% to 7.3% and 7.2% to 11.3%, respectively. These errors were lower than for left ventricular ejection fraction and most other conventional echocardiographic parameters.Conclusion: Reproducibility of GLS measurements was good and in many cases superior to conventional echocardiographic measurements. The small but statistically significant variation among vendors should be considered in performing serial studies and reflects a reference point for ongoing standardization efforts.