P4364A direct comparison between 2D and 4D deformation imaging in hypertrophic hearts. An agreement of disagreement

Abstract

Abstract Background Previous studies have directly compared 2-dimensional (2D) and 4-dimensional (4D) deformation imaging in normal and ischemic hearts suggesting a moderate agreement prone to technical considerations. However, the level of agreement between 2D and 4D-strain imaging has never been adequately addressed in hypertrophic hearts, nor has it been validated against a “ground truth”. Purpose We aimed at directly comparing 4D and 2D global and regional deformation parameters and depict which may best reflect underlying segmental fibrosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), as defined by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Methods We included 40 HCM patients (54.1±14.3 years, 82.5% male, maximum wall thickness 19.3±4.8mm) who have consecutively undergone 2D-,4D-speckle tracking echocardiography and CMR. Global and segmental circumferential (CS) and longitudinal (LS) strain have been calculated from 2D acquisitions and 4D full volume data, where additionally radial (RS) and area (AS) strain have been extracted using an 18 segment left ventricle model. Accordingly, segmental fibrosis was defined by LGE in corresponding CMR slices. Results Deformation parameters (2D and 4D, global and regional) presented overall poor to moderate agreement (Figure A+B) with regional 4D_LS and 4D_CS values being constantly less negative compared to 2D derivatives (−7.29±6.94% and −8.53±8.8% accordingly). In regional analysis, 720 segments were evaluated of which 134 (19.7%) were enhanced and 95 of them thickened (68.8%) (thickness>12 mm), with segments presenting both characteristics showing the greatest impairment both in 2D and 4D strain values. Among segmental deformation indices, 2D_SLS showed the best area under the curve [(AUC)=0.78, 95% CI (0.75–0.81), p<0.0005] to detect segmental fibrosis, with 2D_SCS and all 4D deformation indices presenting significantly lower AUC (Figure C). Conclusions In HCM, 2D and 4D deformation parameters are not interchangeable, showing modest agreement. Thickness and tracking algorithm calculating assumptions seem to induce this variability. Nevertheless, among HCM patients 2D_SLS remains the best strain parameter for tissue characterization and fibrosis detection. Acknowledgement/Funding Supported with a scholarship by the Greek State Scholarship Foundation (IKY).