Intertechnique agreement and interstudy reproducibility of strain and diastolic strain rate at 1.5 and 3 tesla: A comparison of feature-tracking and tagging in patients with aortic stenosis
Purpose To determine the interstudy reproducibility of myocardial strain and peak early‐diastolic strain rate (PEDSR) measurement on cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessed with feature tracking (FT) and tagging, in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). Materials and Methods Cardiac M...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of magnetic resonance imaging 2015-04, Vol.41 (4), p.1129-1137 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1137 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 1129 |
| container_title | Journal of magnetic resonance imaging |
| container_volume | 41 |
| creator | Singh, Anvesha Steadman, Christopher D. Khan, Jamal N. Horsfield, Mark A. Bekele, Soliana Nazir, Sheraz A. Kanagala, Prathap Masca, Nicholas G.D. Clarysse, Patrick McCann, Gerry P. |
| description | Purpose
To determine the interstudy reproducibility of myocardial strain and peak early‐diastolic strain rate (PEDSR) measurement on cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessed with feature tracking (FT) and tagging, in patients with aortic stenosis (AS).
Materials and Methods
Cardiac MRI was performed twice (1–14 days apart) in 18 patients (8 at 1.5 Tesla [T], 10 at 3T) with moderate–severe AS. Circumferential peak systolic strain (PSS) and PEDSR were measured in all patients. Longitudinal PSS and PEDSR were assessed using FT in all patients, and tagging in the 3T sub‐group.
Results
PSS was higher with FT than tagging (21.0 ± 1.9% versus 17.0 ± 3.4% at 1.5T, 21.4 ± 4.0% versus 17.7 ± 3.0% at 3T, P < 0.05), as was PEDSR (1.3 ± 0.3 s−1 versus 1.0 ± 0.3 s−1, P = 0.10 at 1.5T and 1.3 ± 0.4 s−1 versus 0.8 ± 0.3 s−1, P < 0.05 at 3T). The reproducibility of PSS was excellent with FT (coefficient of variation [CoV] 9–10%) and good with tagging at 1.5T (13–19%). Reproducibility of circumferential PEDSR was best at 1.5T when only basal/mid slices were included (CoV 12%), but moderate to poor at 3T (29–35%). Reproducibility of longitudinal strain was good with FT (10–16%) but moderate for PEDSR (∼30%).
Conclusion
In patients with AS, FT consistently produces higher values compared with tagging. The interstudy reproducibility of PSS is excellent with FT and good with tagging. The reproducibility of circumferential PEDSR at 1.5T is good when only basal and mid slices are used. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015;41:1129–1137. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/jmri.24625 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01273224v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1665121544</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5355-ed9a8cef0a8579f875300679fb7ac33a89ebdf127a6c1f92ce8225feefd0d0ca3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kk2P0zAQhiMEYpeFCz8AWeICSCn-iPPBraxgWyhFQsBKXKypM2ndzUexHZb-OP4bTrPtgQMnj8bP-854PFH0lNEJo5S_3jbWTHiScnkvOmeS85jLPL0fYipFzHKanUWPnNtSSosikQ-jM55klCY0OY_-zFuP1qPetOZnjwTWFrHB1hNoS2KGS-f7ck8s7mxX9tqsTG38nnQVcd6CaQ9gacD5rjb6mLTgg5knbCIPgCAeXQ1vyJTortmBNa5rB5MKwfcW4yDTN6ZdH2gP6_UQB6MdeBPaceTW-A2BzvpDEWw7Z9zj6EEFtcMnd-dF9O39u6-Xs3jx-Wp-OV3EWgopYywLyDVWFHKZFVWeSUFpGqJVBloIyAtclRXjGaSaVQXXmHMuK8SqpCXVIC6il6PvBmq1s6YBu1cdGDWbLtSQo0EsOE9-scC-GNkwrzBR51VjnMa6hha73imWppJxJpMkoM__Qbddb9vwkoFKEioKPlCvRkrbzjmL1akDRtWwAGpYAHVYgAA_u7PsVw2WJ_T44wFgI3Bratz_x0p9-PRlfjSNR40Jg_990oC9UWkmMqmul1fq44-3s6VYflfX4i8ISs3B</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1664403924</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Intertechnique agreement and interstudy reproducibility of strain and diastolic strain rate at 1.5 and 3 tesla: A comparison of feature-tracking and tagging in patients with aortic stenosis</title><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Singh, Anvesha ; Steadman, Christopher D. ; Khan, Jamal N. ; Horsfield, Mark A. ; Bekele, Soliana ; Nazir, Sheraz A. ; Kanagala, Prathap ; Masca, Nicholas G.D. ; Clarysse, Patrick ; McCann, Gerry P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Singh, Anvesha ; Steadman, Christopher D. ; Khan, Jamal N. ; Horsfield, Mark A. ; Bekele, Soliana ; Nazir, Sheraz A. ; Kanagala, Prathap ; Masca, Nicholas G.D. ; Clarysse, Patrick ; McCann, Gerry P.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To determine the interstudy reproducibility of myocardial strain and peak early‐diastolic strain rate (PEDSR) measurement on cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessed with feature tracking (FT) and tagging, in patients with aortic stenosis (AS).
Materials and Methods
Cardiac MRI was performed twice (1–14 days apart) in 18 patients (8 at 1.5 Tesla [T], 10 at 3T) with moderate–severe AS. Circumferential peak systolic strain (PSS) and PEDSR were measured in all patients. Longitudinal PSS and PEDSR were assessed using FT in all patients, and tagging in the 3T sub‐group.
Results
PSS was higher with FT than tagging (21.0 ± 1.9% versus 17.0 ± 3.4% at 1.5T, 21.4 ± 4.0% versus 17.7 ± 3.0% at 3T, P < 0.05), as was PEDSR (1.3 ± 0.3 s−1 versus 1.0 ± 0.3 s−1, P = 0.10 at 1.5T and 1.3 ± 0.4 s−1 versus 0.8 ± 0.3 s−1, P < 0.05 at 3T). The reproducibility of PSS was excellent with FT (coefficient of variation [CoV] 9–10%) and good with tagging at 1.5T (13–19%). Reproducibility of circumferential PEDSR was best at 1.5T when only basal/mid slices were included (CoV 12%), but moderate to poor at 3T (29–35%). Reproducibility of longitudinal strain was good with FT (10–16%) but moderate for PEDSR (∼30%).
Conclusion
In patients with AS, FT consistently produces higher values compared with tagging. The interstudy reproducibility of PSS is excellent with FT and good with tagging. The reproducibility of circumferential PEDSR at 1.5T is good when only basal and mid slices are used. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015;41:1129–1137. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-1807</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-2586</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24625</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24700404</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Aged ; Algorithms ; aortic stenosis ; Aortic Valve Stenosis - complications ; Aortic Valve Stenosis - pathology ; Aortic Valve Stenosis - physiopathology ; Bioengineering ; Cardiac MRI ; Diastole ; Elastic Modulus ; Elasticity Imaging Techniques - methods ; Engineering Sciences ; feature tracking ; Female ; Humans ; Image Enhancement - methods ; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Imaging ; Life Sciences ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine - methods ; Male ; Observer Variation ; Pattern Recognition, Automated - methods ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Shear Strength ; Signal and Image processing ; Stress, Mechanical ; Stroke Volume ; tagging ; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - etiology ; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - pathology ; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - physiopathology</subject><ispartof>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, 2015-04, Vol.41 (4), p.1129-1137</ispartof><rights>2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5355-ed9a8cef0a8579f875300679fb7ac33a89ebdf127a6c1f92ce8225feefd0d0ca3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5355-ed9a8cef0a8579f875300679fb7ac33a89ebdf127a6c1f92ce8225feefd0d0ca3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5495-7655</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjmri.24625$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjmri.24625$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,1427,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46808</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24700404$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-01273224$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Singh, Anvesha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steadman, Christopher D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khan, Jamal N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horsfield, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bekele, Soliana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nazir, Sheraz A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kanagala, Prathap</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masca, Nicholas G.D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarysse, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCann, Gerry P.</creatorcontrib><title>Intertechnique agreement and interstudy reproducibility of strain and diastolic strain rate at 1.5 and 3 tesla: A comparison of feature-tracking and tagging in patients with aortic stenosis</title><title>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</title><addtitle>J. Magn. Reson. Imaging</addtitle><description>Purpose
To determine the interstudy reproducibility of myocardial strain and peak early‐diastolic strain rate (PEDSR) measurement on cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessed with feature tracking (FT) and tagging, in patients with aortic stenosis (AS).
Materials and Methods
Cardiac MRI was performed twice (1–14 days apart) in 18 patients (8 at 1.5 Tesla [T], 10 at 3T) with moderate–severe AS. Circumferential peak systolic strain (PSS) and PEDSR were measured in all patients. Longitudinal PSS and PEDSR were assessed using FT in all patients, and tagging in the 3T sub‐group.
Results
PSS was higher with FT than tagging (21.0 ± 1.9% versus 17.0 ± 3.4% at 1.5T, 21.4 ± 4.0% versus 17.7 ± 3.0% at 3T, P < 0.05), as was PEDSR (1.3 ± 0.3 s−1 versus 1.0 ± 0.3 s−1, P = 0.10 at 1.5T and 1.3 ± 0.4 s−1 versus 0.8 ± 0.3 s−1, P < 0.05 at 3T). The reproducibility of PSS was excellent with FT (coefficient of variation [CoV] 9–10%) and good with tagging at 1.5T (13–19%). Reproducibility of circumferential PEDSR was best at 1.5T when only basal/mid slices were included (CoV 12%), but moderate to poor at 3T (29–35%). Reproducibility of longitudinal strain was good with FT (10–16%) but moderate for PEDSR (∼30%).
Conclusion
In patients with AS, FT consistently produces higher values compared with tagging. The interstudy reproducibility of PSS is excellent with FT and good with tagging. The reproducibility of circumferential PEDSR at 1.5T is good when only basal and mid slices are used. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015;41:1129–1137. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>aortic stenosis</subject><subject>Aortic Valve Stenosis - complications</subject><subject>Aortic Valve Stenosis - pathology</subject><subject>Aortic Valve Stenosis - physiopathology</subject><subject>Bioengineering</subject><subject>Cardiac MRI</subject><subject>Diastole</subject><subject>Elastic Modulus</subject><subject>Elasticity Imaging Techniques - methods</subject><subject>Engineering Sciences</subject><subject>feature tracking</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Enhancement - methods</subject><subject>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Pattern Recognition, Automated - methods</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Shear Strength</subject><subject>Signal and Image processing</subject><subject>Stress, Mechanical</subject><subject>Stroke Volume</subject><subject>tagging</subject><subject>Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - etiology</subject><subject>Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - pathology</subject><subject>Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - physiopathology</subject><issn>1053-1807</issn><issn>1522-2586</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kk2P0zAQhiMEYpeFCz8AWeICSCn-iPPBraxgWyhFQsBKXKypM2ndzUexHZb-OP4bTrPtgQMnj8bP-854PFH0lNEJo5S_3jbWTHiScnkvOmeS85jLPL0fYipFzHKanUWPnNtSSosikQ-jM55klCY0OY_-zFuP1qPetOZnjwTWFrHB1hNoS2KGS-f7ck8s7mxX9tqsTG38nnQVcd6CaQ9gacD5rjb6mLTgg5knbCIPgCAeXQ1vyJTortmBNa5rB5MKwfcW4yDTN6ZdH2gP6_UQB6MdeBPaceTW-A2BzvpDEWw7Z9zj6EEFtcMnd-dF9O39u6-Xs3jx-Wp-OV3EWgopYywLyDVWFHKZFVWeSUFpGqJVBloIyAtclRXjGaSaVQXXmHMuK8SqpCXVIC6il6PvBmq1s6YBu1cdGDWbLtSQo0EsOE9-scC-GNkwrzBR51VjnMa6hha73imWppJxJpMkoM__Qbddb9vwkoFKEioKPlCvRkrbzjmL1akDRtWwAGpYAHVYgAA_u7PsVw2WJ_T44wFgI3Bratz_x0p9-PRlfjSNR40Jg_990oC9UWkmMqmul1fq44-3s6VYflfX4i8ISs3B</recordid><startdate>201504</startdate><enddate>201504</enddate><creator>Singh, Anvesha</creator><creator>Steadman, Christopher D.</creator><creator>Khan, Jamal N.</creator><creator>Horsfield, Mark A.</creator><creator>Bekele, Soliana</creator><creator>Nazir, Sheraz A.</creator><creator>Kanagala, Prathap</creator><creator>Masca, Nicholas G.D.</creator><creator>Clarysse, Patrick</creator><creator>McCann, Gerry P.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5495-7655</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201504</creationdate><title>Intertechnique agreement and interstudy reproducibility of strain and diastolic strain rate at 1.5 and 3 tesla: A comparison of feature-tracking and tagging in patients with aortic stenosis</title><author>Singh, Anvesha ; Steadman, Christopher D. ; Khan, Jamal N. ; Horsfield, Mark A. ; Bekele, Soliana ; Nazir, Sheraz A. ; Kanagala, Prathap ; Masca, Nicholas G.D. ; Clarysse, Patrick ; McCann, Gerry P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5355-ed9a8cef0a8579f875300679fb7ac33a89ebdf127a6c1f92ce8225feefd0d0ca3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>aortic stenosis</topic><topic>Aortic Valve Stenosis - complications</topic><topic>Aortic Valve Stenosis - pathology</topic><topic>Aortic Valve Stenosis - physiopathology</topic><topic>Bioengineering</topic><topic>Cardiac MRI</topic><topic>Diastole</topic><topic>Elastic Modulus</topic><topic>Elasticity Imaging Techniques - methods</topic><topic>Engineering Sciences</topic><topic>feature tracking</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Enhancement - methods</topic><topic>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Pattern Recognition, Automated - methods</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Shear Strength</topic><topic>Signal and Image processing</topic><topic>Stress, Mechanical</topic><topic>Stroke Volume</topic><topic>tagging</topic><topic>Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - etiology</topic><topic>Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - pathology</topic><topic>Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - physiopathology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Singh, Anvesha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steadman, Christopher D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khan, Jamal N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horsfield, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bekele, Soliana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nazir, Sheraz A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kanagala, Prathap</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masca, Nicholas G.D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarysse, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCann, Gerry P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Singh, Anvesha</au><au>Steadman, Christopher D.</au><au>Khan, Jamal N.</au><au>Horsfield, Mark A.</au><au>Bekele, Soliana</au><au>Nazir, Sheraz A.</au><au>Kanagala, Prathap</au><au>Masca, Nicholas G.D.</au><au>Clarysse, Patrick</au><au>McCann, Gerry P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Intertechnique agreement and interstudy reproducibility of strain and diastolic strain rate at 1.5 and 3 tesla: A comparison of feature-tracking and tagging in patients with aortic stenosis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</jtitle><addtitle>J. Magn. Reson. Imaging</addtitle><date>2015-04</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1129</spage><epage>1137</epage><pages>1129-1137</pages><issn>1053-1807</issn><eissn>1522-2586</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To determine the interstudy reproducibility of myocardial strain and peak early‐diastolic strain rate (PEDSR) measurement on cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessed with feature tracking (FT) and tagging, in patients with aortic stenosis (AS).
Materials and Methods
Cardiac MRI was performed twice (1–14 days apart) in 18 patients (8 at 1.5 Tesla [T], 10 at 3T) with moderate–severe AS. Circumferential peak systolic strain (PSS) and PEDSR were measured in all patients. Longitudinal PSS and PEDSR were assessed using FT in all patients, and tagging in the 3T sub‐group.
Results
PSS was higher with FT than tagging (21.0 ± 1.9% versus 17.0 ± 3.4% at 1.5T, 21.4 ± 4.0% versus 17.7 ± 3.0% at 3T, P < 0.05), as was PEDSR (1.3 ± 0.3 s−1 versus 1.0 ± 0.3 s−1, P = 0.10 at 1.5T and 1.3 ± 0.4 s−1 versus 0.8 ± 0.3 s−1, P < 0.05 at 3T). The reproducibility of PSS was excellent with FT (coefficient of variation [CoV] 9–10%) and good with tagging at 1.5T (13–19%). Reproducibility of circumferential PEDSR was best at 1.5T when only basal/mid slices were included (CoV 12%), but moderate to poor at 3T (29–35%). Reproducibility of longitudinal strain was good with FT (10–16%) but moderate for PEDSR (∼30%).
Conclusion
In patients with AS, FT consistently produces higher values compared with tagging. The interstudy reproducibility of PSS is excellent with FT and good with tagging. The reproducibility of circumferential PEDSR at 1.5T is good when only basal and mid slices are used. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015;41:1129–1137. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>24700404</pmid><doi>10.1002/jmri.24625</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5495-7655</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1053-1807 |
| ispartof | Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, 2015-04, Vol.41 (4), p.1129-1137 |
| issn | 1053-1807 1522-2586 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01273224v1 |
| source | Wiley Free Content; MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Aged Algorithms aortic stenosis Aortic Valve Stenosis - complications Aortic Valve Stenosis - pathology Aortic Valve Stenosis - physiopathology Bioengineering Cardiac MRI Diastole Elastic Modulus Elasticity Imaging Techniques - methods Engineering Sciences feature tracking Female Humans Image Enhancement - methods Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods Imaging Life Sciences Magnetic resonance imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine - methods Male Observer Variation Pattern Recognition, Automated - methods Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity Shear Strength Signal and Image processing Stress, Mechanical Stroke Volume tagging Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - etiology Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - pathology Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - physiopathology |
| title | Intertechnique agreement and interstudy reproducibility of strain and diastolic strain rate at 1.5 and 3 tesla: A comparison of feature-tracking and tagging in patients with aortic stenosis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T12%3A50%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Intertechnique%20agreement%20and%20interstudy%20reproducibility%20of%20strain%20and%20diastolic%20strain%20rate%20at%201.5%20and%203%20tesla:%20A%20comparison%20of%20feature-tracking%20and%20tagging%20in%20patients%20with%20aortic%20stenosis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging&rft.au=Singh,%20Anvesha&rft.date=2015-04&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1129&rft.epage=1137&rft.pages=1129-1137&rft.issn=1053-1807&rft.eissn=1522-2586&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jmri.24625&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E1665121544%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1664403924&rft_id=info:pmid/24700404&rfr_iscdi=true |