Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Feature Tracking for Systolic and Diastolic Strain and Strain Rate Calculation With Spatial Modulation of Magnetization Imaging Analysis
Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Feature Tracking for Systolic and Diastolic Strain and Strain Rate Calculation With Spatial Modulation of Magnetization Imaging Analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/jmri.24623
复制
发表时间：
2015-04-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Steeds, Richard P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Moody, William E.;Taylor, Robin J.;Steeds, Richard P.
目的比较心血管磁共振特征跟踪（CMR-FT）与空间磁化调制（SPAMM）标记成像在计算收缩期和舒张期短轴和长轴拉格朗日应变测量中的作用。材料和方法前瞻性确定健康对照组（n = 35）和扩张型心肌病患者（n = 10），并进行稳态自由进动（SSFP）电影成像和使用梯度回波序列的SPAMM成像。使用CMR-FT和动态组织标记（CIMTag 2D）对在相同水平长轴和短轴切片位置采集的图像进行定时离线分析。使用Bland-Altman technique.ResultsAcross all participants，CMR-FT和CIMTag之间在计算收缩期峰值全球周向应变方面具有良好的一致性（-22.7 6. 2% vs. -22.5 +/-6.9%，偏倚0.2 +/- 4.0%）和SR（-1.35 +/- 0.42 1/s vs. -1.22 +/- 0.42 1/s，偏倚0.13 +/- 0.33 1/s）和舒张早期全周SR（1.21 +/- 0.44 1/s vs. 1.07 +/- 0.30 1/s，偏倚-0.14 +/- 0.34 1/s）。收缩期峰值整体纵向应变（-18.1 +/- 5.0% vs. -16.7 +/-4.8%，偏倚1.3 +/- 3.8%）和SR（-1.04 +/- 0.29 1/s vs. -0.95 +/- 0.32 1/s，偏倚0.09 +/- 0.26 1/s）的推导结果一致。最弱的一致性是舒张早期整体纵向SR（1.10 +/- 0.40 1/s vs. 0.67 +/- 0.32 1/s，偏倚-0.42 +/- 0.40 1/s），尽管相关性仍然显著（r = 0.42，P < 0.01）。CMR-FT生成这些数据的速度比CIMTag快四倍以上。结论使用CMR-FT计算的收缩和舒张应变测量值与CMR-FT的心肌标记之间存在足够的一致性，被认为是一种潜在可行且快速的替代方案。J.磁共振Imaging 2015;41：1000-1012. (c)2014 Wiley Periodicals，Inc.
PurposeTo compare cardiovascular magnetic resonance-feature tracking (CMR-FT) with spatial modulation of magnetization (SPAMM) tagged imaging for the calculation of short and long axis Lagrangian strain measures in systole and diastole.Materials and MethodsHealthy controls (n = 35) and patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 10) were identified prospectively and underwent steady-state free precession (SSFP) cine imaging and SPAMM imaging using a gradient-echo sequence. A timed offline analysis of images acquired at identical horizontal long and short axis slice positions was performed using CMR-FT and dynamic tissue-tagging (CIMTag2D). Agreement between strain and strain rate (SR) values calculated using these two different methods was assessed using the Bland-Altman technique.ResultsAcross all participants, there was good agreement between CMR-FT and CIMTag for calculation of peak systolic global circumferential strain (-22.7 6.2% vs. -22.5 +/- 6.9%, bias 0.2 +/- 4.0%) and SR (-1.35 +/- 0.42 1/s vs. -1.22 +/- 0.42 1/s, bias 0.13 +/- 0.33 1/s) and early diastolic global circumferential SR (1.21 +/- 0.44 1/s vs. 1.07 +/- 0.30 1/s, bias -0.14 +/- 0.34 1/s) at the subendocardium. There was satisfactory agreement for derivation of peak systolic global longitudinal strain (-18.1 +/- 5.0% vs. -16.7 +/- 4.8%, bias 1.3 +/- 3.8%) and SR (-1.04 +/- 0.29 1/s vs. -0.95 +/- 0.32 1/s, bias 0.09 +/- 0.26 1/s). The weakest agreement was for early diastolic global longitudinal SR (1.10 +/- 0.40 1/s vs. 0.67 +/- 0.32 1/s, bias -0.42 +/- 0.40 1/s), although the correlation remained significant (r = 0.42, P < 0.01). CMR-FT generated these data over four times quicker than CIMTag.ConclusionThere is sufficient agreement between systolic and diastolic strain measures calculated using CMR-FT and myocardial tagging for CMR-FT to be considered as a potentially feasible and rapid alternative. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015;41:1000-1012. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.