Orlowska Marta, Ramalli Alessandro, Bezy Stephanie, Meacci Valentino, Voigt Jens-Uwe, D'Hooge Jan
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2021 May;68(5):1511-1520. doi: 10.1109/TUFFC.2020.3037043. Epub 2021 Apr 26.
High-frame-rate (HFR) speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) assesses myocardial function by quantifying motion and deformation at high temporal resolution. Among the proposed HFR techniques, multiline transmission (MLT) and diverging wave (DW) imaging have been used in this context both being characterized by specific advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, in this article, we directly contrast both approaches in an in vivo setting while operating at the same frame rate (FR). First, images were recorded at baseline (resting condition) from healthy volunteers and patients. Next, additional acquisitions during stress echocardiography were performed on volunteers. Each scan was contoured and processed by a previously proposed 2-D HFR STE algorithm based on cross correlation. Then, strain curves and their end-systolic (ES) values were extracted for all myocardial segments for further statistical analysis. The baseline acquisitions did not reveal differences in estimated strain between the acquisition modes ( ); myocardial segments ( ); or an interaction between imaging mode and depth ( ). Similarly, during stress testing, no difference ( p = 0.7 ) was observed for the two scan sequences, stress levels or an interaction sequence-stress level ( p = 0.94 ). Overall, our findings show that MLT and DW compoundings give comparable HFR STE strain values and that the choice for using one method or the other may thus rather be based on other factors, for example, system requirements or computational cost.
高帧率(HFR)散斑追踪超声心动图(STE)通过在高时间分辨率下量化运动和变形来评估心肌功能。在已提出的HFR技术中,多线传输(MLT)和发散波(DW)成像已在此背景下使用,两者都具有特定的优缺点。因此,在本文中,我们在体内环境中以相同帧率(FR)操作时直接对比这两种方法。首先,从健康志愿者和患者在基线(静息状态)下记录图像。接下来,对志愿者进行负荷超声心动图期间的额外采集。每次扫描均由先前提出的基于互相关的二维HFR STE算法进行轮廓描绘和处理。然后,提取所有心肌节段的应变曲线及其收缩末期(ES)值以进行进一步的统计分析。基线采集未显示采集模式()、心肌节段()或成像模式与深度之间的相互作用()在估计应变方面存在差异。同样,在负荷测试期间,两种扫描序列、负荷水平或序列 - 负荷水平之间的相互作用(p = 0.94)均未观察到差异(p = 0.7)。总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,MLT和DW复合成像给出了可比的HFR STE应变值,因此选择使用一种方法或另一种方法可能更多地基于其他因素,例如系统要求或计算成本。