Comparison of local sine wave modeling with harmonic phase analysis for the assessment of myocardial strain
Comparison of local sine wave modeling with harmonic phase analysis for the assessment of myocardial strain
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/jmri.23973
复制
发表时间：
2013-08-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Schmitt, Matthias
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Miller, Christopher A.;Borg, Alex;Schmitt, Matthias
目的：比较局部正弦波建模 (SinMod) 与谐波相位分析 (HARP)，以评估标记的心血管磁共振图像中的左心室 (LV) 周向应变 (epsilon cc)。 材料和方法：对 60 名参与者（各 15 名肥厚型、扩张型或缺血性心肌病患者和 15 名健康对照者）在 1.5 特斯拉下进行心室中空间磁化调制。使用 HARP 和 SinMod 测量全局和分段峰值透壁 epsilon cc。对 25% 的检查进行重复测量，以评估观察者的变异性。在另外 10 名患者中评估了对比效果。结果：SinMod 在全局 epsilon cc 方面与 HARP 表现出高度一致性（平均差 -0.02，95% 一致性限度 -6.46 至 6.43%）。分段 epsilon cc 的一致性要低得多。两种方法都显示了全局 epsilon cc 的良好观察者一致性（组内相关系数 >0.75）。 SinMod 的分段 epsilon cc 观察者一致性也非常好，但 HARP 的观察者一致性明显较低。使用 SinMod 分析时间显着缩短。使用这两种技术，对比前和对比后 epsilon cc 测量结果没有显着差异，尽管对比后测量显示 HARP 具有更大的变异性。结论：基于 SinMod 和 HARP 的全局 epsilon cc 测量具有高度一致性，但分段一致性要低得多。 SinMod 通常具有较低的观察者变异性、速度更快且受对比度影响较小，但需要进一步验证。 J.马格。共振。成像 2013 年；38：320-328。 (c) 2012 年 Wiley 期刊公司。
Purpose: To compare local sine-wave modeling (SinMod) with harmonic phase analysis (HARP), for assessment of left ventricular (LV) circumferential strain (epsilon cc) from tagged cardiovascular magnetic resonance images.Materials and Methods: Mid-ventricular spatial modulation of magnetization was performed in 60 participants (15 each with hypertrophic, dilated or ischemic cardiomyopathy and 15 healthy controls) at 1.5 Tesla. Global and segmental peak transmural epsilon cc were measured using HARP and SinMod. Repeated measurements were performed on 25% of examinations to assess observer variability. Effect of contrast was assessed in 10 additional patients.Results: SinMod showed a high level of agreement with HARP for global epsilon cc (mean difference -0.02, 95% limits of agreement -6.46 to 6.43%). Agreement was much lower for segmental epsilon cc. Both methods showed excellent observer agreement for global epsilon cc (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.75). Observer agreement for segmental epsilon cc was also excellent with SinMod, but was significantly lower with HARP. Analysis time was significantly shorter using SinMod. Pre- and postcontrast epsilon cc measurements were not significantly different using either technique, although postcontrast measurements showed greater variability with HARP.Conclusion: SinMod and HARP-based measurements of global epsilon cc have a high level of agreement, but segmental agreement is substantially lower. SinMod has generally lower observer variability, is faster and is less affected by contrast, but requires further validation. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013;38:320-328. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.