Variability of right ventricular global and segmental longitudinal strain measurements

Objectives We evaluated intra‐observer, test–retest, and inter‐observer reproducibility of right ventricular (RV) longitudinal strain (LS) measurements derived from two‐dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography. Background The assessment of RV deformation has demonstrated to hold valuable progno...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2019-01, Vol.36 (1), p.102-109
Hauptverfasser: Mirea, Oana, Berceanu, Mihaela, Donoiu, Ionuț, Militaru, Constantin, Săftoiu, Adrian, Istrătoaie, Octavian
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives We evaluated intra‐observer, test–retest, and inter‐observer reproducibility of right ventricular (RV) longitudinal strain (LS) measurements derived from two‐dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography. Background The assessment of RV deformation has demonstrated to hold valuable prognostic and diagnostic data in clinical practice. Data about the reproducibility of the measurements, however, are missing. Methods In 200 subjects, apical modified four‐chamber view focused on the right ventricle (RV) was obtained. In 150 subjects (75%), a second set of images was acquired for test–retest analysis. Global RV LS (RVGLS‐4C), free wall strain (RVFW‐4C), and segmental maximum peak strain (base, mid, and apex) were calculated (EchoPac vBT13, GE Vingmed Ultrasound, Horten, Norway). Additionally, the reliability and feasibility of RV free wall strain derived from single wall tracking (RVFW‐SWT) were tested. The absolute difference between repeated measurements and inter‐class correlation coefficients (ICC) for consistency was calculated. Results RVGLS‐4C and RVFW‐4C measurement could be obtained in all subjects. RVGLS‐4C demonstrated lower intra‐observer, test–retest, and inter‐observer absolute difference compared to RVFW‐4C (1.4 ± 1.2%, 1.8 ± 1.5%, and 1.7 ± 1.9%, respectively, vs 2.4 ± 2.4, 2.2 ± 1.9, and 2.6 ± 3.0, respectively, P 
ISSN:0742-2822
1540-8175
DOI:10.1111/echo.14218