Comparison between conventional and compressed sensing cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance for feature tracking global circumferential\xa0strain assessment

Tomoyuki Kido,Kouki Watanabe,Teruhito Kido,Ryo Ogawa,Kuniaki Hirai,Teruhito Mochizuki,Akira Kurata,Naoto Kawaguchi,Yuki Tanabe,Michaela Schmidt,Christoph Forman,Masashi Nakamura

doi:10.1186/s12968-021-00708-5

Abstract

BackgroundFeature tracking (FT) has become an established tool for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-based strain analysis. Recently, the compressed sensing (CS) technique has been applied to cine CMR, which has drastically reduced its acquisition time. However, the effects of CS imaging on FT strain analysis need to be carefully studied. This study aimed to investigate the use of CS cine CMR for FT strain analysis compared to conventional cine CMR.MethodsSixty-five patients with different left ventricular (LV) pathologies underwent both retrospective conventional cine CMR and prospective CS cine CMR using a prototype sequence with the comparable temporal and spatial resolution at 3 T. Eight short-axis cine images covering the entire LV were obtained and used for LV volume assessment and FT strain analysis. Prospective CS cine CMR data over 1.5 heartbeats were acquired to capture the complete end-diastolic data between the first and second heartbeats. LV volume assessment and FT strain analysis were performed using a dedicated software (ci42; Circle Cardiovasacular Imaging, Calgary, Canada), and the global circumferential strain (GCS) and GCS rate were calculated from both cine CMR sequences.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the GCS (− 17.1% [− 11.7, − 19.5] vs. − 16.1% [− 11.9, − 19.3; p = 0.508) and GCS rate (− 0.8 [− 0.6, − 1.0] vs. − 0.8 [− 0.7, − 1.0]; p = 0.587) obtained using conventional and CS cine CMR. The GCS obtained using both methods showed excellent agreement (y = 0.99x − 0.24; r = 0.95; p < 0.001). The Bland–Altman analysis revealed that the mean difference in the GCS between the conventional and CS cine CMR was 0.1% with limits of agreement between -2.8% and 3.0%. No significant differences were found in all LV volume assessment between both types of cine CMR.ConclusionCS cine CMR could be used for GCS assessment by CMR-FT as well as conventional cine CMR. This finding further enhances the clinical utility of high-speed CS cine CMR imaging.

Highlights

Feature tracking (FT) has become an established tool for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)based strain analysis
This study investigated the effects and adequacy of using compressed sensing (CS) cine CMR images for FT strain analysis compared to conventional cine CMR
All conventional and CS cine CMR images were eligible for Left ventricular (LV) volume assessments and CMR-FT analyses

Summary

Introduction

Feature tracking (FT) has become an established tool for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)based strain analysis. Myocardial strain analyses using several advanced CMR techniques, including tagging [9], displacement encoding with stimulated echoes [10], strain encoding [11], and tissue phase mapping [12] have been shown to be superior to wall motion assessments for detecting differences in myocardial deformation. The global circumferential strain (GCS) assessment has been reported to be an independent prognostic indicator of both asymptomatic patients and those with heart failure [13, 14]. These techniques can provide reference standard measurements of myocardial strain, they require additional time-consuming sequences that are often clinically impractical

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion