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.