Skip to content

Advertisement

Volume 18 Supplement 1

19th Annual SCMR Scientific Sessions

  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

A comparison of cardiac motion analysis software packages: application to left ventricular deformation analysis in healthy subjects

  • 1,
  • 1, 2,
  • 1, 2,
  • 1, 2 and
  • 1, 2
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance201618 (Suppl 1) :P47

https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-18-S1-P47

  • Published:

Keywords

  • Deformation Parameter
  • Longitudinal Strain
  • Feature Tracking
  • CIMTag Measurement
  • Myocardial Wall Motion

Background

Feature tracking (FT) software packages measure myocardial wall motion deformation parameters through the cardiac cycle. Myocardial tagging technique is currently considered the gold standard for myocardial deformation measurements. This study compares 2 FT-software packages with a tagging software package and investigates the differences in strain deformation parameters measured in healthy subjects.

Methods

41 healthy subjects were prospectively enrolled to undergo CMR examinations; one was excluded for poor image quality. CMR images were acquired using a 1.5T Achieva Philips scanner (Best, the Netherlands) and a dedicated 32-channel cardiac coil. Balanced-SSFP breath hold cine-images were acquired in the following planes: short axis (basal, mid, apical levels), 2-chamber and 4-chamber. Tagged images, (3 short axis slices of the LV (base, mid and apex), 4-chamber and 2-chamber planes) were acquired using CSPAMM, with a tag separation of 7.5 mm and a tag grid angle of 90°.

Endocardial and epicardial borders of LV were manually delineated at the end diastolic phase. Quantitative deformation parameters: strains were calculated semi-automatically using the following software: 2D Cardiac Performance Analysis, MR (TomTec Imaging Systems, Munich, Germany) and CVI42 (Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Canada). Tagged images were analyzed using CIMTag2D software (CIMTag2D v.8.1.2, Auckland MRI Research Group, New Zealand). All statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, USA).

Results

Results of global circumferential, radial, and longitudinal strain means are given in Table 1
Table 1

Global strain measurements for the different software (mean ± standard deviation %), grey cells showed there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) between that results and CIMTag measurements.

  

Tagging

Feature Tracking

Feature Tracking

Parameters

Parameters

CIMTag

CVI42

Tomtec

Circumferential Strain

SAX-basal

-17.55 ± 1.40

-16.36 ± 3.87

-15.63 ± 3.26

Circumferential Strain

SAX-mid

-18.26 ± 3.63

-14.11 ± 1.95

-14.35 ± 2.64

Circumferential Strain

SAX-apical

-20.65 ± 2.79

-14.75 ± 2.59

-17.47 ± 4.29

Radial Strain

SAX-basal

38.94 ± 26.74

29.75 ± 19.61

34.39 ± 10.68

Radial Strain

SAX-mid

27.81 ± 9.95

21.67 ± 4.15

38.55 ± 11.76

Radial Strain

SAX-apical

23.09 ± 10.52

24.67 ± 5.59

30.10 ± 13.41

Radial Strain

2-chamber

24.77 ± 12.58

30.72 ± 6.05

34.00 ± 10.96

Radial Strain

4-chamber

20.44 ± 15.46

35.15 ± 7.07

28.88 ± 7.21

Longitudinal Strain

2-chamber

-14.25 ± 2.33

-16.27 ± 2.05

-15.83 ± 3.88

Longitudinal Strain

4-chamber

-14.56 ± 2.20

-17.03 ± 1.97

-16.49 ± 3.74

There were significant differences (P < 0.05) in circumferential (basal, mid, apical) strains measured by Tomtec compared to CIMTag measurements. The differences were also statistically significant for circumferential (mid, apical) strains measured by CVI42 compared to CIMTag measurements.

Longitudinal strains measured by CVI42 compared to CIMTag showed significant differences, and most parameters measured by all FT-software packages were higher than CIMTag in absolute values. However, longitudinal strains measured by Tomtec compared to CVI42 showed no significant difference.

Conclusions

From our results, FT- software packages measurements showed significant differences in most parameters when compared to the tagging results (CIMTag) with only a few parameters in agreement. There is a need for a standard method of validation, ideally based on a numerical phantom to assess the accuracy of these software packages in order to facilitate their use in a clinical setting.

Figure 1

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centre for Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging and Research, William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University London, London, UK
(2)
Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK

Copyright

© Almutairi et al. 2016

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement