BACKGROUND Strain and synchrony can be calculated from a variety of software packages, but there is a paucity of data with inter-vendor comparisons in children. To test the hypothesis that different packages may affect results, independent of acquisition, we compared values obtained using two commercially available analysis tool (QLAB and TomTec), with several different settings. METHODS The study population included 108 children; patients were divided into three groups: (1) normal cardiac structure and conduction; (2) ventricular paced rhythm; and (3) flattened ventricular septum (reflecting right ventricular pressure or volume load lesions). We analyzed the same image acquired from the apical 4-chamber (AP4) and short-axis at the mid-papillary level (SAXM) views in both QLAB (versions 10.5 and 10.8) and TomTec (version 1.2). In QLAB version 10.8, low, medium, and high quantification smoothness settings were employed. In TomTec, images were analyzed with both low and high frame rates. Tracking quality for each package was graded. AP4 and SAXM strain and synchrony values were recorded. A mixed-effects linear regression model was used, with main effect considered significant if the p-value was < 0.05. RESULTS Tracking scores were high for all packages except QLAB 10.5 in the SAXM view. AP4 and SAXM strain values varied significantly between QLAB 10.5 and the other packages. Synchrony values varied widely for all strain values (p < 0.001 for both) in all packages. Quantification smoothness changes in QLAB 10.8 did not impact strain significantly in any patient group; temporal resolution changes in TomTec resulted in strain differences in children with flat ventricular septums, but not those with normal or ventricular paced hearts. CONCLUSION Synchrony values varied substantially among all packages in children. Strain values varied widely between QLAB 10.5 and all other software packages, recommending avoidance of QLAB 10.5 for future studies. Quantification smoothness settings in QLAB 10.8 resulted in minimal strain differences. In TomTec, low and high frame rate strain values differed only in a subset of patients (flattened septum). These data suggest that reliable comparisons between strain values derived from QLAB and TomTec is possible in certain cases, but that caution should be used especially in different hemodynamics conditions.

中文翻译：

---

基于斑点超声心动图的儿童心室应变分析：供应商比较。

背景技术可以从各种软件包中计算出应变和同步性，但是在儿童中，缺乏供应商之间的比较数据。为了检验不同包装可能会影响结果的假设，而与获取无关，我们比较了使用两种市售分析工具（QLAB和TomTec）以及几种不同设置获得的值。方法：研究人群包括108名儿童。患者分为三组：（1）正常的心脏结构和传导；（2）心室起搏节律；（3）室间隔变平（反映右室压力或体积负荷病变）。我们分析了在QLAB（10.5版和10.8版）和TomTec（1.2版）中从乳头中层（SAXM）视图从根尖4腔（AP4）和短轴获取的同一图像。在QLAB版本10中。在图8中，采用了低，中和高定量平滑度设置。在TomTec中，以低和高帧频分析图像。对每个包裹的跟踪质量进行了分级。记录AP4和SAXM应变和同步值。使用了混合效应线性回归模型，如果p值<0.05，则认为主要效应显着。结果在SAXM视图中，除QLAB 10.5以外，所有软件包的跟踪得分均很高。在QLAB 10.5和其他封装之间，AP4和SAXM应变值差异很大。在所有包装中，所有应变值的同步值差异很大（两者均p <0.001）。在任何患者组中，QLAB 10.8中的定量平滑度变化均不会显着影响应变。TomTec的时间分辨率变化导致室间隔扁平儿童的应变差异，但那些心脏正常或心室起搏的人则不然。结论同步值在所有儿童包装中都有很大差异。QLAB 10.5和所有其他软件包之间的应变值差异很大，建议在以后的研究中避免使用QLAB 10.5。QLAB 10.8中的定量平滑度设置导致最小的应变差异。在TomTec中，低帧速率应变值和高帧速率应变值仅在部分患者（扁平隔垫）中有所不同。这些数据表明，在某些情况下，可以可靠地比较QLAB和TomTec产生的应变值，但应特别注意在不同的血液动力学条件下。5和所有其他软件包，建议避免使用QLAB 10.5以便将来研究。QLAB 10.8中的定量平滑度设置导致最小的应变差异。在TomTec中，低帧速率应变值和高帧速率应变值仅在部分患者（扁平隔垫）中有所不同。这些数据表明，在某些情况下，可以可靠地比较QLAB和TomTec产生的应变值，但应特别注意在不同的血液动力学条件下。5和所有其他软件包，建议避免使用QLAB 10.5以便将来研究。QLAB 10.8中的定量平滑度设置导致最小的应变差异。在TomTec中，低帧速率应变值和高帧速率应变值仅在部分患者（扁平隔垫）中有所不同。这些数据表明，在某些情况下，可以可靠地比较QLAB和TomTec产生的应变值，但应特别注意在不同的血液动力学条件下。