Skip to main content

Table 2 Overview of mean peak SCS and mean T2P-SCS measured with CMR-FT endo , tissue tagging and CMR-FT mid

From: Feature tracking compared with tissue tagging measurements of segmental strain by cardiovascular magnetic resonance

  Total study group (n = 30) Healthy volunteers (n = 10) LBBB (n = 10) HCM (n = 10)
  CMR-FT endo (%) Tissue tagging (%) CMR-FT mid (%) CMR-FT endo (%) Tissue tagging (%) CMR-FT mid (%) CMR-FT endo (%) Tissue tagging (%) CMR-FT mid (%) CMR-FT endo (%) Tissue tagging (%) CMR-FT mid (%)
Mean peak SCS -23.8 ± 9.9 -13.4 ± 3.3 -16.4 ± 6.1¥$ -25.9 ± 3.3# -16.5 ± 1.6 -20.0 ± 3.1*^ -12.4 ± 5.6 -9.9 ± 1.1 -9.4 ± 3.6^ -33.2 ± 5.0# -13.8 ± 2.5 -19.8 ± 3.9#^
Mean T2P-SCS 380 ± 58 378 ± 52 390 ± 68 336 ± 34* 354 ± 34 330 ± 27* 418 ± 66* 376 ± 55 454 ± 60* 388 ± 41 405 ± 54 384 ± 45
  1. Left bundle branch block patients (LBBB), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients (HCM), cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking with endocardial contours (CMR-FTendo), cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature-tracking with mid-wall contours (CMR-FTmid), systolic circumferential strain (SCS), time to peak systolic circumferential strain (T2P-SCS).
  2. *p < 0.05 compared with tissue tagging; #p < 0.01 compared with tissue tagging; ^p < 0.01 compared with CMR-FTendo; p < 0.001 compared with tissue tagging; ¥p < 0.001 compared with CMR-FTendo; $p = 0.001 compared with tissue tagging.