TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of septal strain patterns in dyssynchronous heart failure between speckle tracking echocardiography vendor systems
AU - van Everdingen, Wouter M.
AU - Paiman, Marie-Louise
AU - van Deursen, Caroline J. M.
AU - Cramer, Maarten J.
AU - Vernooy, Kevin
AU - Delhaas, Tammo
AU - Prinzen, Frits W.
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - Aim: To analyze inter-vendor differences of speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) in imaging cardiac deformation in patients with dyssynchronous heart failure. Methods and results: Eleven patients (all with LBBB, median age 60.7 years, 9 males) with implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy devices were prospectively included. Ultrasound systems of two vendors (i.e. General Electric and Philips) were used to record images in the apical four chamber view. Regional longitudinal strain patterns were analyzed with vendor specific software in the basal, mid and apical septal segments. Systolic strain (SS), time to peak strain (TTP) and septal rebound stretch (SRS) were determined during four pacing settings, resulting in 44 unique strain patterns per segment (total 132 patterns). Cross correlation was used to analyze the comparability of the shape of 132 normalized strain patterns. Correlation of strain patterns of the two systems was high (R-2 median: 0.68, interquartile range: 0.53-0.82). Accordingly, strain patterns of intrinsic rhythm were recognized equally using both systems, when divided into three types. GE based SS (18.9 +/- 4.7%) was significantly higher than SS determined by the Philips system (13.4 +/- 4.3%). TTP was slightly but non-significantly lower in GE (384 +/- 77 ms) compared to Philips (404 +/- 83 ms) derived strain signals. Correlation of SRS between the systems was poor, due to minor differences in the strain signal and timing of aortic valve closure. Conclusions: The two systems provide similar shape of strain patterns. However, important differences are found in the amplitude, timing of systole and SRS. Until STE is standardized, clinical decision making should be restricted to pattern analysis.
AB - Aim: To analyze inter-vendor differences of speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) in imaging cardiac deformation in patients with dyssynchronous heart failure. Methods and results: Eleven patients (all with LBBB, median age 60.7 years, 9 males) with implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy devices were prospectively included. Ultrasound systems of two vendors (i.e. General Electric and Philips) were used to record images in the apical four chamber view. Regional longitudinal strain patterns were analyzed with vendor specific software in the basal, mid and apical septal segments. Systolic strain (SS), time to peak strain (TTP) and septal rebound stretch (SRS) were determined during four pacing settings, resulting in 44 unique strain patterns per segment (total 132 patterns). Cross correlation was used to analyze the comparability of the shape of 132 normalized strain patterns. Correlation of strain patterns of the two systems was high (R-2 median: 0.68, interquartile range: 0.53-0.82). Accordingly, strain patterns of intrinsic rhythm were recognized equally using both systems, when divided into three types. GE based SS (18.9 +/- 4.7%) was significantly higher than SS determined by the Philips system (13.4 +/- 4.3%). TTP was slightly but non-significantly lower in GE (384 +/- 77 ms) compared to Philips (404 +/- 83 ms) derived strain signals. Correlation of SRS between the systems was poor, due to minor differences in the strain signal and timing of aortic valve closure. Conclusions: The two systems provide similar shape of strain patterns. However, important differences are found in the amplitude, timing of systole and SRS. Until STE is standardized, clinical decision making should be restricted to pattern analysis.
KW - Speckle tracking echocardiography
KW - Longitudinal strain
KW - Strain patterns
KW - CRT
KW - Vendor comparison
KW - Heart failure
KW - Dyssynchrony
KW - SRS
KW - Septum
KW - Correlation
U2 - 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2014.12.021
DO - 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2014.12.021
M3 - Article
C2 - 25620788
SN - 0022-0736
VL - 48
SP - 609
EP - 616
JO - Journal of Electrocardiology
JF - Journal of Electrocardiology
IS - 4
ER -