Background

Recently, dedicated speckle-tracking solutions for right ventricular (RV) and left atrial (LA) strain assessment have become commercially available. The purpose of this study was to assess the level of agreement between nondedicated (left ventricular [LV] tracking software) and novel dedicated tracking software for RV and LA strain.

Methods

In 200 patients with various cardiovascular pathologies, we measured global longitudinal strain (GLS), free wall strain (FWS), and segmental values, as well as LA strain during reservoir, conduit, and contraction phases, by using the (1) LV-tracking software and (2) the novel dedicated tracking software for RV or LA strain analysis. Agreement between corresponding measurements obtained with the LV and dedicated RV or LA software was determined by using mean absolute difference (MAD) and Bland-Altman test. The intra- and interobserver reproducibility related to the nondedicated and novel dedicated tracking software was tested in 30 randomly selected subjects.

Results

The dedicated RV-tracking software provided slightly lower strain values without reaching statistical significance. The agreement between software was best for RV GLS (MAD, 2.4 ± 1.8) and significantly poorer for segmental values (MAD ranging from 4.5 ± 3.8 to 5.1 ± 4.0; analysis of variance, P < .05). The intra- and interobserver reproducibility for RV measurements was similar with both software (P > .05 for all parameters). Left atrial mean values showed no statistical difference when obtained with the two tracking tools. The use of LA dedicated tracking software increased significantly the intra- and interobserver reproducibility for LA strain during reservoir and atrial contraction (P < .01 for both).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the choice of tracking software does not significantly impact RV strain measurements. Nonetheless, the use of the same tracking software is recommended when performing serial measurements. The use of the dedicated software for LA strain analysis significantly improved the intra- and interobserver reproducibility.

中文翻译：

---

用于右心室和左心房应变的非专用和新型专用跟踪工具的比较

背景

最近，用于右心室 (RV) 和左心房 (LA) 应变评估的专用散斑跟踪解决方案已上市。本研究的目的是评估非专用（左心室 [LV] 跟踪软件）和新的 RV 和 LA 应变专用跟踪软件之间的一致性水平。

方法

在 200 名患有各种心血管疾病的患者中，我们使用 (1) LV-跟踪软件和 (2) 用于 RV 或 LA 应变分析的新型专用跟踪软件。通过使用平均绝对差 (MAD) 和 Bland-Altman 测试确定使用 LV 和专用 RV 或 LA 软件获得的相应测量值之间的一致性。在 30 名随机选择的受试者中测试了与非专用和新型专用跟踪软件相关的观察者内部和观察者间的可重复性。

结果

专用的 RV 跟踪软件提供的应变值略低，但没有达到统计学意义。软件之间的一致性对于 RV GLS (MAD, 2.4 ± 1.8) 是最好的，而对于分段值 (MAD 从 4.5 ± 3.8 到 5.1 ± 4.0；方差分析，P  < .05) 则明显较差。RV 测量的观察者内和观察者间重现性与两种软件相似（所有参数P  > .05）。当使用两种跟踪工具获得时，左心房平均值没有显示出统计学差异。使用 LA 专用跟踪软件显着提高了在储层和心房收缩期间 LA 应变的内部和观察者间再现性（两者的P  < .01）。

结论

我们的结果表明，跟踪软件的选择不会显着影响 RV 应变测量。尽管如此，建议在执行串行测量时使用相同的跟踪软件。使用专用软件进行 LA 应变分析显着提高了观察者内和观察者间的可重复性。