Table 2 Comparisons of peak strain assessed by different CMR techniques
| Â | Tagging by HARP | DENSE | FT by Tomtec | FT By CIM | FT By Circle |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Entire cohort (N = 87) | |||||
 Ecc (%) | −13 ± 4 | −13 ± 4 | −16 ± 6 | − 10 ± 3 | −14 ± 4 |
 Err (%) | 32 ± 24 | 40 ± 28 | 47 ± 26 | 64 ± 33 | 23 ± 9 |
 Ell (%) | −14 ± 4 | −8 ± 3 | −13 ± 5 | −11 ± 3 | −12 ± 4 |
Normal subjects (N = 10) | |||||
 Ecc (%) | −15 ± 2 | −17 ± 4 | −20 ± 4 | −12 ± 3 | −17 ± 3 |
 Err (%) | 38 ± 20 | 47 ± 14 | 54 ± 20 | 76 ± 35 | 27 ± 6 |
 Ell (%) | −16 ± 3 | −11 ± 3 | −14 ± 3 | −13 ± 2 | −14 ± 4 |