Affordable Access

Publisher Website

Comparison of feature tracking with harmonic phase imaging analysis for the assessment of diastolic dysfunction

Authors
Journal
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
1097-6647
Publisher
Springer (Biomed Central Ltd.)
Publication Date
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1186/1532-429x-15-s1-e110
Keywords
  • Poster Presentation
Disciplines
  • Medicine

Abstract

Comparison of feature tracking with harmonic phase imaging analysis for the assessment of diastolic dysfunction POSTER PRESENTATION Open Access Comparison of feature tracking with harmonic phase imaging analysis for the assessment of diastolic dysfunction Jonas Doerner*, Daniel Kuetting, Alois M Sprinkart, Claas P Naehle, Hans H Schild, Daniel Thomas From 16th Annual SCMR Scientific Sessions San Francisco, CA, USA. 31 January - 3 February 2013 Background Diastolic dysfunction (DD) is common in patients with cardiovascular disease. Current cardiac magnetic reso- nance techniques for assessment of DD require the acquisition of tagged imaging sequences, and complex post-processing. A new post-processing software allows for rapid strain assessment using feature tracking ana- lysis (FT) (TomTec, Diogenes Software, Germany) based on conventional steady-state free precession (SSFP)-Cine sequences. The aim of this study was to compare tagging (TAG) with FT for assessment of diastolic function in patients with DD and healthy controls. Methods 20 healthy volunteers and 10 patients with echocardio- graphic diagnosed DD Grade II-III were investigated by the 2 techniques. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (Philips Intera 1.5T) using CSPAMM and SSFP-Cine sequences was performed for matched mid- ventricular short-axis slices. Each modality was analyzed offline using dedicated post-processing software (Tag Track, Gyrotools, CH for CSPAMM and TomTec for SSFP-Cine) and early-diastolic strain rate (EDSr) was calculated from both datasets. EDSr derived from CSPAMM and SSFP-Cine data were compared and inter-observer and intra-observer variability assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and Pearson correlation coefficient. Results For all measurements FT EDSr (78.15+/- 17.17 s-1) was highly correlated with TAG EDSr (76.71+/- 17.45s-1), Bland-Altman analyses for method comparison yielded a mean difference of 1.4 (95% CI: 0.0 to 2.9). Limits of agreement (+/- 1.96 SD) were -14.9 and 12.0. In pa

There are no comments yet on this publication. Be the first to share your thoughts.