DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Echocardiography Core Laboratory Validation of a Novel Vendor-Independent Web-Based Software for the Assessment of Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain

  • Ernest Spitzer (Cardialysis, Clinical Trial Management & Core Laboratories) ;
  • Benjamin Camacho (Cardialysis, Clinical Trial Management & Core Laboratories) ;
  • Blaz Mrevlje (Cardialysis, Clinical Trial Management & Core Laboratories) ;
  • Hans-Jelle Brandendburg (Cardialysis, Clinical Trial Management & Core Laboratories) ;
  • Claire B. Ren (Cardialysis, Clinical Trial Management & Core Laboratories)
  • 투고 : 2022.11.06
  • 심사 : 2023.02.19
  • 발행 : 2023.07.27

초록

BACKGROUND: Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is an accurate and reproducible parameter of left ventricular (LV) systolic function which has shown meaningful prognostic value. Fast, user-friendly, and accurate tools are required for its widespread implementation. We aim to compare a novel web-based tool with two established algorithms for strain analysis and test its reproducibility. METHODS: Thirty echocardiographic datasets with focused LV acquisitions were analyzed using three different semi-automated endocardial GLS algorithms by two readers. Analyses were repeated by one reader for the purpose of intra-observer variability. CAAS Qardia (Pie Medical Imaging) was compared with 2DCPA and AutoLV (TomTec). RESULTS: Mean GLS values were -15.0 ± 3.5% from Qardia, -15.3 ± 4.0% from 2DCPA, and -15.2 ± 3.8% from AutoLV. Mean GLS between Qardia and 2DCPA were not statistically different (p = 0.359), with a bias of -0.3%, limits of agreement (LOA) of 3.7%, and an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.88. Mean GLS between Qardia and AutoLV were not statistically different (p = 0.637), with a bias of -0.2%, LOA of 3.4%, and an ICC of 0.89. The coefficient of variation (CV) for intra-observer variability was 4.4% for Qardia, 8.4% 2DCPA, and 7.7% AutoLV. The CV for inter-observer variability was 4.5%, 8.1%, and 8.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In echocardiographic datasets of good image quality analyzed at an independent core laboratory using a standardized annotation method, a novel web-based tool for GLS analysis showed consistent results when compared with two algorithms of an established platform. Moreover, inter- and intra-observer reproducibility results were excellent.

키워드

과제정보

This work was partly funded by Pie Medical Imaging and partly funded by Cardialysis.

참고문헌

  1. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;16:233-70.
  2. Fries B, Liu D, Gaudron P, et al. Role of global longitudinal strain in the prediction of outcome in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Am J Cardiol 2017;120:640-7.
  3. Ilardi F, Marchetta S, Martinez C, et al. Impact of aortic stenosis on layer-specific longitudinal strain: relationship with symptoms and outcome. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2020;21:408-16.
  4. Bendary A, Tawfeek W, Mahros M, Salem M. The predictive value of global longitudinal strain on clinical outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and preserved systolic function. Echocardiography 2018;35:915-21.
  5. Tawfik W, El-Sherif A, Bendary A, Mahros M, Salem M. Impact of global longitudinal strain on left ventricular remodeling and clinical outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Echocardiography 2020;37:570-7.
  6. Iacoviello M, Puzzovivo A, Guida P, et al. Independent role of left ventricular global longitudinal strain in predicting prognosis of chronic heart failure patients. Echocardiography 2013;30:803-11.
  7. Farsalinos KE, Daraban AM, Unlu S, Thomas JD, Badano LP, Voigt JU. Head-to-head comparison of global longitudinal strain measurements among nine different vendors: the EACVI/ASE inter-vendor comparison study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2015;28:1171-81, e2.
  8. Sugimoto T, Dulgheru R, Bernard A, et al. Echocardiographic reference ranges for normal left ventricular 2D strain: results from the EACVI NORRE study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;18:833-40.
  9. Tsugu T, Postolache A, Dulgheru R, et al. Echocardiographic reference ranges for normal left ventricular layer-specific strain: results from the EACVI NORRE study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2020;21:896-905.
  10. unlu S, Mirea O, Duchenne J, et al. Comparison of feasibility, accuracy, and reproducibility of layer-specific global longitudinal strain measurements among five different vendors: a report from the EACVI-ASE Strain Standardization Task Force. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2018;31:374-380.e1.
  11. Spitzer E, Ren B, Zijlstra F, Mieghem NM, Geleijnse ML. The role of automated 3D echocardiography for left ventricular ejection fraction assessment. Card Fail Rev 2017;3:97-101.
  12. unlu S, Duchenne J, Mirea O, et al. Impact of apical foreshortening on deformation measurements: a report from the EACVI-ASE Strain Standardization Task Force. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2020;21:337-43.
  13. Voigt JU, Pedrizzetti G, Lysyansky P, et al. Definitions for a common standard for 2D speckle tracking echocardiography: consensus document of the EACVI/ASE/Industry Task Force to standardize deformation imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2015;28:183-93.