AIMS Left atrial (LA) strain is a prognostic biomarker with utility across a spectrum of acute and chronic cardiovascular pathologies. There are limited data on intervendor differences and no data on intermodality differences for LA strain. We sought to compare the intervendor and intermodality differences between transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) derived LA strain. We hypothesized that various components of atrial strain would show good intervendor and intermodality correlation but that there would be systematic differences between vendors and modalities. METHODS AND RESULTS We evaluated 54 subjects (43 patients with a clinical indication for CMR and 11 healthy volunteers) in a study comparing TTE- and CMR-derived LA reservoir strain (ƐR), conduit strain (ƐCD), and contractile strain (ƐCT). The LA strain components were evaluated using four dedicated types of post-processing software. We evaluated the correlation and systematic bias between modalities and within each modality. Intervendor and intermodality correlation was: ƐR [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 0.64-0.90)], ƐCD (ICC 0.62-0.89), and ƐCT (ICC 0.58-0.77). There was evidence of systematic bias between vendors and modalities with mean differences ranging from (3.1-12.2%) for ƐR, ƐCD (1.6-8.6%), and ƐCT (0.3-3.6%). Reproducibility analysis revealed intraobserver coefficient of variance (COV) of 6.5-14.6% and interobserver COV of 9.9-18.7%. CONCLUSION Vendor derived ƐR, ƐCD, and ƐCT demonstrates modest to excellent intervendor and intermodality correlation depending on strain component examined. There are systematic differences in measurements depending on modality and vendor. These differences may be addressed by future studies, which, examine calibration of LA geometry/higher frame rate imaging, semi-quantitative approaches, and improvements in reproducibility.

中文翻译：

---

左心房劳损：多模式，多供应商比较研究。

AIMS左心房（LA）株是一种预后生物标志物，可用于一系列急性和慢性心血管疾病。关于LA品系，关于厂商间差异的数据有限，而关于模态间差异的数据则没有。我们试图比较经胸超声心动图（TTE）和心脏磁共振（CMR）衍生的LA株之间的供应商和联运方式差异。我们假设心房劳损的各个组成部分将表现出良好的供应商和联运方式的相关性，但供应商和方式之间会有系统的差异。方法和结果我们在一项研究中比较了TTE和CMR衍生的LA储库株（ƐR），导管株（ƐCD）和收缩株（ƐCT），对54名受试者（43名具有CMR临床指征的患者和11名健康志愿者）进行了评估。 。使用四种专用类型的后处理软件评估了LA菌株的成分。我们评估了模态之间以及每个模态之间的相关性和系统偏差。供应商之间和模式间的相关性为：ƐR[类内相关系数（ICC 0.64-0.90）]，ƐCD（ICC 0.62-0.89）和ƐCT（ICC 0.58-0.77）。有证据表明，卖方和模式之间存在系统性偏差，biasR，ƐCD（1.6-8.6％）和ƐCT（0.3-3.6％）的均值差异在（3.1-12.2％）之间。再现性分析显示观察者内变异系数（COV）为6.5-14.6％，观察者间变异系数为9.9-18.7％。结论供应商派生的ƐR，ƐCD和ƐCT表现出适中至极好的供应商和模态相关性，具体取决于所检查的应变分量。根据方式和供应商的不同，测量存在系统差异。这些差异可以通过将来的研究来解决，该研究检查LA几何体的校准/更高的帧频成像，半定量方法以及可重复性的提高。