P984 A head-to-head comparison between 2D and 3D segmental strain parameters in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Supported with a scholarship by the Greek State Scholarship Foundation (IKY). Background Previous studies have suggested that in normal and ischemic hearts three- (3D) and two-dimensional (2D) strain values present a moderate agreement which is prone to technical considerations. However, the level of agreement between 2D and 3D-strain imaging has never been adequately addressed in hypertrophic hearts, nor has it been validated against a "ground truth". Especially in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), the magnitude and eccentricity of hypertrophy set additional challenges in standardization and measurement of regional 3D deformation parameters. Purpose Aims of this study were i) to investigate the consistency between 3D and 2D regional deformation parameters in HCM and ii) to test their accuracy in identifying regional fibrosis as this is 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-,3D-speckle tracking echocardiography and CMR. Segmental circumferential (SCS) and longitudinal (SLS) strain have been calculated from 2D acquisitions and 3D full volume data, where additionally radial (SRS) and area (SAS) strain have been extracted using an 18 segment left ventricle model. Accordingly, segmental fibrosis was defined by LGE in corresponding CMR slices. Results Out of 720 segments evaluated, 134 (19.7%) were enhanced and 95(13.2%) thickened (thickness > 12 mm). Two dimensional LS and CS analysis was feasible in 719 (99.9%) and 678 (94.2%) segments respectively, while 686 segments (95.3%) were appropriate for 3D tracking. 3D_SLS values were -7.9 ± 6.8% less negative compared to 2D_SLS values [level of agreement (LOA)(-21.1-5.4%)], while the bias for SCS values was even higher -8.5 ± 8.6 [LOA(-25.4-8.4%)]. Absolute agreement between 2D and 3D deformation imaging modalities was poor to moderate [Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC)= 0.46, 95%CI (0.15-0.68), p < 0.0005 for SLS and ICC = 0.19, 95%CI(0.07-0.38), p < 0.0005 for SCS] (Panel A). Following regression analysis, regional thickness was the only segmental factor to influence the correlation between 3D and 2D_SLS [R2 = 0.504, B = 0.33, 95%CI(0.22-0.44), p < 0.0005)], without, however, being a significant regressor for the other 2D vs 3D correlations. Among 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 identified by CMR LGE, with 3D_SLS, 3D_SAS and 3D_SRS showing similar AUC (0.65) and 3D_SLS presenting the highest specificity [93.1%, 95%CI(90.6-95.1)] (Panel B). Conclusions In HCM, 2D and 3D deformation parameters are not interchangeable, showing modest agreement. Thickness and tracking algorithm calculating assumptions seem to induce this inconsistency. Among HCM patients, 2D_SLS remains the most accurate strain parameter to detect regional fibrosis. Abstract P984 Figure.