Skip to main content

Table 2 Global longitudinal and circumferential strain values by tagging and different feature tracking (FT) software

From: Multivendor comparison of global and regional 2D cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking strains vs tissue tagging at 3T

  

All (n = 61)

VOL (n = 18)

ISCH (n = 18)

DCM (n = 15)

LVH (n = 10)

p value

GLS

Tagging (%)

− 9.7 ± 5.0c

− 15.4 ± 1.7 IDL c

− 5.5 ± 2.8 Lc

− 6.8 ± 3.3 L

− 11.4 ± 3.6

 < 0.001

 FT cvi42 (%)

− 10.1 ± 4.8c

− 15.0 ± 1.3 IDLc

− 6.3 ± 3.3 L

− 6.8 ± 3.5 L

− 12.7 ± 2.6 c

 < 0.001

 FT Segment (%)

− 10.3 ± 5.3c

− 15.6 ± 1.7 ID

− 6.5 ± 3.8 L

− 6.6 ± 3.9 L

− 13.2 ± 3.4

 < 0.001

 FT Tomtec (%)

− 11.5 ± 5.9c

− 17.9 ± 1.8 ID

− 6.9 ± 3.7 L

− 7.2 ± 3.6 L

− 14.7 ± 3.5

 < 0.001

GCS

Tagging (%)

− 10.6 ± 4.5ab

− 15.9 ± 1.4 IDL b

− 7.5 ± 2.4 L

− 7.1 ± 3.2 L

− 12.9 ± 1.6ab

 < 0.001

 FT cvi42 (%)

− 12.0 ± 6.0

− 17.6 ± 1.9 ID

− 7.3 ± 3.3 L

− 7.0 ± 3.4 L

− 17.2 ± 4.2

 < 0.001

 FT Segment (%)

− 12.1 ± 6.8c

− 18.6 ± 2.6 ID

− 6.8 ± 4.1 L

− 6.7 ± 3.2 L

− 18.5 ± 4.2c

 < 0.001

 FT Tomtec (%)

− 11.0 ± 6.2

− 17.1 ± 2.5 ID

− 6.5 ± 3.6 L

− 6.0 ± 3.0 L

− 15.6 ± 5.2

 < 0.001

GRS

Tagging (%)cab

11.3 ± 5.6cab

16.7 ± 3.0 ID

8.0 ± 2.5 Lbc

6.0 ± 3.2 L

16.2 ± 2.4cba

 < 0.001

 FT cvi42 (%)bc

19.0 ± 11.9bc

29.2 ± 4.8 ID

9.9 ± 5.1 Lc

9.3 ± 5.2 L

30.3 ± 11.0bc

 < 0.001

 FT Segment (%)c

25.1 ± 16.7c

40.3 ± 8.1 ID

12.5 ± 9.3 Lc

12.6 ± 9.3 L

38.6 ± 9.5c

 < 0.001

 FT Tomtec (%)

53.6 ± 38.0

76.9 ± 32.9 ID

30.0 ± 43.7 L

45 ± 20

73.4 ± 24.9

 < 0.001

  1. GCS, global circumferential strain; GLS, global longitudinal strain; GRS, global radial strain
  2. Paired comparison within each test I: p < 0.05 vs ISCH, D: p < 0.05 vs DCM, L: p < 0.05 vs LVH
  3. Paired comparisons among tests: ap < 0.05 vs cvi42 bp < 0.05 vs Segment cp < 0.05 vs Tomtec