Cargando…

The impact of semi-automatic versus manually adjusted assessment of global longitudinal strain in post-myocardial infarction patients

There are unresolved questions related to the proper use of editing the region of interest (ROI) for measurements of global longitudinal strain (GLS). The purpose of the present study was to compare the semi-automatic default GLS value by the vendor’s software with manually adjusted GLS and test the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Otterstad, Jan Erik, Norum, Ingvild Billehaug, Ruddox, Vidar, Bendz, Bjørn, Haugaa, Kristina H., Edvardsen, Thor
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7256100/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32236908
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-020-01826-4
_version_ 1783539846894059520
author Otterstad, Jan Erik
Norum, Ingvild Billehaug
Ruddox, Vidar
Bendz, Bjørn
Haugaa, Kristina H.
Edvardsen, Thor
author_facet Otterstad, Jan Erik
Norum, Ingvild Billehaug
Ruddox, Vidar
Bendz, Bjørn
Haugaa, Kristina H.
Edvardsen, Thor
author_sort Otterstad, Jan Erik
collection PubMed
description There are unresolved questions related to the proper use of editing the region of interest (ROI) for measurements of global longitudinal strain (GLS). The purpose of the present study was to compare the semi-automatic default GLS value by the vendor’s software with manually adjusted GLS and test the impact on GLS measures with different ROI widths. We selected 25 patients post myocardial infarction treated with PCI who had excellent echocardiographic recordings after 2–5 days and 3 months. The different GLS values were assessed from these 50 analyses in three steps. The semi-automatically GLS by default ROIs was compared with manually adjusted ROIs widths selected by an expert and then with manual adjustments, but with fixed ROIs being narrow, medium and wide. Their mean age was 64 (± 12) years, 52% had ST elevation MI and mean LVEF was 52 (± 4)%. Mean default GLS was − 15.3 (± 2.5)% with the widest ROI level selected semi-automatically in 78% of all widths. The mean expert GLS with manually adjusted ROI was − 14.7 (± 2.4)%, and the medium ROI level was selected by the expert in 85% of all examinations. The mean adjusted GLS, but with fixed ROIs widths was − 15.0 (± 2.5%)% with narrow ROI, − 14.7 (± 2.6)% with medium and − 13.5 (± 2.3)% with wide ROI width (p < 0.001 vs. default GLS). The Intra Class Coefficient Correlation between default and manually adjusted expert GLS was 0.93 (p < 0.001). The difference between the default and the manually adjusted expert GLS was neglectable. These findings may represent a simplification of the assessment of GLS that might increase its use in clinical practice. The GLS measurements with a fixed wide ROIs were significantly different from the expert measurements and indicate that a wide ROI should be avoided. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10554-020-01826-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7256100
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72561002020-06-08 The impact of semi-automatic versus manually adjusted assessment of global longitudinal strain in post-myocardial infarction patients Otterstad, Jan Erik Norum, Ingvild Billehaug Ruddox, Vidar Bendz, Bjørn Haugaa, Kristina H. Edvardsen, Thor Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Original Paper There are unresolved questions related to the proper use of editing the region of interest (ROI) for measurements of global longitudinal strain (GLS). The purpose of the present study was to compare the semi-automatic default GLS value by the vendor’s software with manually adjusted GLS and test the impact on GLS measures with different ROI widths. We selected 25 patients post myocardial infarction treated with PCI who had excellent echocardiographic recordings after 2–5 days and 3 months. The different GLS values were assessed from these 50 analyses in three steps. The semi-automatically GLS by default ROIs was compared with manually adjusted ROIs widths selected by an expert and then with manual adjustments, but with fixed ROIs being narrow, medium and wide. Their mean age was 64 (± 12) years, 52% had ST elevation MI and mean LVEF was 52 (± 4)%. Mean default GLS was − 15.3 (± 2.5)% with the widest ROI level selected semi-automatically in 78% of all widths. The mean expert GLS with manually adjusted ROI was − 14.7 (± 2.4)%, and the medium ROI level was selected by the expert in 85% of all examinations. The mean adjusted GLS, but with fixed ROIs widths was − 15.0 (± 2.5%)% with narrow ROI, − 14.7 (± 2.6)% with medium and − 13.5 (± 2.3)% with wide ROI width (p < 0.001 vs. default GLS). The Intra Class Coefficient Correlation between default and manually adjusted expert GLS was 0.93 (p < 0.001). The difference between the default and the manually adjusted expert GLS was neglectable. These findings may represent a simplification of the assessment of GLS that might increase its use in clinical practice. The GLS measurements with a fixed wide ROIs were significantly different from the expert measurements and indicate that a wide ROI should be avoided. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10554-020-01826-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Netherlands 2020-03-31 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7256100/ /pubmed/32236908 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-020-01826-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Otterstad, Jan Erik
Norum, Ingvild Billehaug
Ruddox, Vidar
Bendz, Bjørn
Haugaa, Kristina H.
Edvardsen, Thor
The impact of semi-automatic versus manually adjusted assessment of global longitudinal strain in post-myocardial infarction patients
title The impact of semi-automatic versus manually adjusted assessment of global longitudinal strain in post-myocardial infarction patients
title_full The impact of semi-automatic versus manually adjusted assessment of global longitudinal strain in post-myocardial infarction patients
title_fullStr The impact of semi-automatic versus manually adjusted assessment of global longitudinal strain in post-myocardial infarction patients
title_full_unstemmed The impact of semi-automatic versus manually adjusted assessment of global longitudinal strain in post-myocardial infarction patients
title_short The impact of semi-automatic versus manually adjusted assessment of global longitudinal strain in post-myocardial infarction patients
title_sort impact of semi-automatic versus manually adjusted assessment of global longitudinal strain in post-myocardial infarction patients
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7256100/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32236908
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-020-01826-4
work_keys_str_mv AT otterstadjanerik theimpactofsemiautomaticversusmanuallyadjustedassessmentofgloballongitudinalstraininpostmyocardialinfarctionpatients
AT norumingvildbillehaug theimpactofsemiautomaticversusmanuallyadjustedassessmentofgloballongitudinalstraininpostmyocardialinfarctionpatients
AT ruddoxvidar theimpactofsemiautomaticversusmanuallyadjustedassessmentofgloballongitudinalstraininpostmyocardialinfarctionpatients
AT bendzbjørn theimpactofsemiautomaticversusmanuallyadjustedassessmentofgloballongitudinalstraininpostmyocardialinfarctionpatients
AT haugaakristinah theimpactofsemiautomaticversusmanuallyadjustedassessmentofgloballongitudinalstraininpostmyocardialinfarctionpatients
AT edvardsenthor theimpactofsemiautomaticversusmanuallyadjustedassessmentofgloballongitudinalstraininpostmyocardialinfarctionpatients
AT otterstadjanerik impactofsemiautomaticversusmanuallyadjustedassessmentofgloballongitudinalstraininpostmyocardialinfarctionpatients
AT norumingvildbillehaug impactofsemiautomaticversusmanuallyadjustedassessmentofgloballongitudinalstraininpostmyocardialinfarctionpatients
AT ruddoxvidar impactofsemiautomaticversusmanuallyadjustedassessmentofgloballongitudinalstraininpostmyocardialinfarctionpatients
AT bendzbjørn impactofsemiautomaticversusmanuallyadjustedassessmentofgloballongitudinalstraininpostmyocardialinfarctionpatients
AT haugaakristinah impactofsemiautomaticversusmanuallyadjustedassessmentofgloballongitudinalstraininpostmyocardialinfarctionpatients
AT edvardsenthor impactofsemiautomaticversusmanuallyadjustedassessmentofgloballongitudinalstraininpostmyocardialinfarctionpatients