English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): German Centre for Cardiovascular Research Purpose Myocardial Feature-Tracking (FT) deformation imaging is superior for risk-stratification compared to volumetric approaches. Since there is no clear recommendation regarding FT post-processing, we compared different FT-strain analyses with reference standard techniques, including tagging and strain encoded (SENC) magnetic resonance imaging. Methods FT software from 4 different vendors (TomTec/Medis/Circle(CVI)/Neosoft), tagging (Segment), and fastSENC (MyoStrain) were used to determine left ventricular global circumferential and longitudinal strains (GCS/GLS) in 12 healthy volunteers and 12 heart failure patients. Variability and agreements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients for absolute agreement (ICCa) and consistency (ICCc) as well as pearson correlation coefficients. Results For FT-GCS, consistency was excellent comparing different FT-vendors (ICCc = 0.84-0.97, r = 0.86-0.95) and compared to fSENC (ICCc = 0.78-0.89, r = 0.73-0.81). FT-GCS consistency was excellent compared to tagging (ICCc = 0.79-0.85, r = 0.74-0.77) except for TomTec (ICCc = 0.68, r = 0.72). Absolute FT-GCS agreements between FT-vendors were highest for CVI and Medis (ICCa = 0.96) and lowest for TomTec and Neosoft (ICCa = 0.32). Similarly, absolute FT-GCS agreements were excellent for CVI and Medis compared to both tagging and fSENC (ICCa = 0.84-0.88), good to excellent for Neosoft (ICCa = 0.77 and 0.64) and lowest for TomTec (ICCa = 0.41 and 0.47). For FT-GLS, consistency was excellent (ICCc≥0.86, r≥0.76). Absolute agreements between FT-vendors were excellent (ICCa = 0.91-0.93) or good to excellent for TomTec (ICCa = 0.69-0.85). Absolute agreements (ICCa) were good (CVI 0.70, Medis 0.60) and fair (TomTec 0.41, Neosoft 0.59) compared to tagging but excellent compared to fSENC (ICCa = 0.77-0.90). Conclusion Although absolute agreements differ depending on deformation assessment approaches, consistency and correlation are consistently high irrespective of the method chosen, thus indicating reliable strain assessment. Further standardisation and introduction of uniform references is warranted for routine clinical implementation.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance deformation imaging: method comparison and considerations regarding reproducibility