Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Pediatr Cardiol. 2021 Aug;42(6):1341-1349. doi: 10.1007/s00246-021-02617-x. Epub 2021 Apr 23.
Myocardial strain offers new insights into ventricular performance, There are software packages from several different companies used to ascertain this, and little data is available in patients with single right ventricle (sRV) physiology. We aimed to compare the analysis of two strain software applications using a cohort of patients with sRV for both inter-vendor and inter-observer variability. Echocardiograms from 85 patients with sRV (122 separate studies) were prospectively evaluated. All had Glenn and/or Fontan palliation. Longitudinal 4-chamber (4LS), inflow/outflow (IO), circumferential, and radial strain were assessed using Velocity Vector Imaging (VVI, Seimens, Munich) and Automated Functional Imaging (AFI, General Electric, Boston) software. In a subset of 45 patients (61 separate studies), strain measurements were obtained by two sonographers so a paired "inter-observer" analysis could be performed. A moderate correlation between measurements made by the two systems was observed. Circumferential strain assessment had the highest R value (0.77) with all others having R values < 0.6. Both software packages showed modest inter-observer reproducibility for longitudinal and circumferential strain. VVI intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for 4LS and average circumferential strain (ACS) were 0.6 and 0.58, compared to 0.68 and 0.59 for AFI. Other than radial strain and VVI IO inferior strain, mean strain differences between AFI and VVI were ≤ 1%. Inter-observer variability is modest, however, mean differences are minimal suggesting reasonable clinical reliability. Inter-vendor variability is greater and not as clinically reliable. In patients with sRV, serial assessments with strain should be performed using the same software.
心肌应变提供了对心室功能的新见解。有几个不同公司的软件包用于确定这一点,但在单右心室(sRV)生理学患者中可用的数据很少。我们旨在比较两种应变软件应用程序在 sRV 患者中的分析,以确定供应商间和观察者间的变异性。前瞻性评估了 85 例 sRV 患者(122 项独立研究)的超声心动图。所有患者均接受了 Glenn 和/或 Fontan 姑息治疗。使用速度向量成像(VVI,西门子,慕尼黑)和自动功能成像(AFI,通用电气,波士顿)软件评估了 4 腔(4LS)、流入/流出(IO)、周向和径向应变。在 45 例患者(61 项独立研究)的亚组中,由两名超声科医生进行应变测量,以便可以进行配对的“观察者间”分析。两种系统的测量值之间观察到中等相关性。周向应变评估的 R 值最高(0.77),其他 R 值均小于 0.6。两种软件包均显示出纵向和周向应变的适度观察者间可重复性。4LS 和平均周向应变(ACS)的 VVI 组内相关系数(ICC)分别为 0.6 和 0.58,而 AFI 为 0.68 和 0.59。除了 AFI 的径向应变和 VVI 的 IO 下应变外,AFI 和 VVI 之间的平均应变差异均≤1%。观察者间变异性适中,但平均差异最小,表明具有合理的临床可靠性。供应商间变异性更大,临床可靠性较差。在 sRV 患者中,应使用相同的软件进行应变的连续评估。