Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparisons of peak strain assessed by different CMR techniques

From: A comparison of both DENSE and feature tracking techniques with tagging for the cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of myocardial strain

  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
  1. Abbreviation: Ecc circumferential strain, Err radial strain, Ell longitudinal strain