Feasibility and reproducibility of semi-automated longitudinal strain analysis: a comparative study with conventional manual strain analysis

Abstract

BackgroundConventional approach to myocardial strain analysis relies on a software designed for the left ventricle (LV) which is complex and time-consuming and is not specific for right ventricular (RV) and left atrial (LA) assessment. This study compared this conventional manual approach to strain evaluation with a novel semi-automatic analysis of myocardial strain, which is also chamber-specific.MethodsTwo experienced observers used the AutoStrain software and manual QLab analysis to measure the LV, RV and LA strains in 152 healthy volunteers. Fifty cases were randomly selected for timing evaluation.ResultsNo significant differences in LV global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) were observed between the two methods (-21.0% ± 2.5% vs. -20.8% ± 2.4%, p = 0.230). Conversely, RV longitudinal free wall strain (RVFWS) and LA longitudinal strain during the reservoir phase (LASr) measured by the semi-automatic software differed from the manual analysis (RVFWS: -26.4% ± 4.8% vs. -31.3% ± 5.8%, p < 0.001; LAS: 48.0% ± 10.0% vs. 37.6% ± 9.9%, p < 0.001). Bland–Altman analysis showed a mean error of 0.1%, 4.9%, and 10.5% for LVGLS, RVFWS, and LASr, respectively, with limits of agreement of -2.9,2.6%, -8.1,17.9%, and -12.3,33.3%, respectively. The semi-automatic method had a significantly shorter strain analysis time compared with the manual method.ConclusionsThe novel semi-automatic strain analysis has the potential to improve efficiency in measurement of longitudinal myocardial strain. It shows good agreement with manual analysis for LV strain measurement.Graphical