Myocardial strain analysis of the right ventricle: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance and echocardiographic techniques

Table 2 Inter-modality and inter-technique agreement for right ventricular strain measurements, shown by Bland-Altman analyses and correlation coefficients

Patients (n = 57)	r	p	Bias (%)	LOA (%)	p
SENC vs. STE
SENC vs. STE-FWLS	0.57	< 0.001	−3.6	−12.2 to 5.0	< 0.001
SENC vs. STE-GLS	0.63	< 0.001	0.7	−5.3 to 6.8	0.094
FT vs. STE
Endo-FT vs. STE -FWLS	0.60	< 0.001	6.8	−9.8 to 23.5	< 0.001
Myo-FT vs. STE-FWLS	0.62	< 0.001	5.5	−9.0 to 20.0	< 0.001
Endo-FT vs. STE-GLS	0.50	< 0.001	11.1	−6.6 to 28.9	< 0.001
Myo-FT vs. STE-GLS	0.54	< 0.001	9.8	−5.3 to 24.9	< 0.001
SENC vs. FT
SENC vs. Endo-FT	0.39	0.003	−10.4	−28.8 to 8.0	< 0.001
SENC vs. Myo-FT	0.41	0.002	−9.1	−24.7 to 6.6	< 0.001
Volunteers (n = 17)
SENC vs. FT
SENC vs. Endo-FT	0.39	0.129	−8.3	−16.9 to 0.28	< 0.001
SENC vs. Myo-FT	0.36	0.162	−6.4	−14.1 to 1.30	< 0.001

Abbreviations: GLS Global longitudinal strain, FWLS Free wall longitudinal strain, STE Speckle tracking echocardiography, SENC strain-encoding, FT Feature tracking, Endo-FT Subendocardial strain determined using FT, Myo-FT Midmyocardial strain determined using FT, LOA Limits of agreement

ISSN: 1532-429X