Trends in the clinical use of speckle tracking strain imaging: insights from a worldwide EACVI survey

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Strain imaging has emerged as a sensitive measure of myocardial function and an early marker of myocardial involvement in different diseases. Purpose and Methods To evaluate the use of speckle tracking strain imaging in clinical practice, an open access online survey was conducted by the EACVI according to published criteria(1). The survey explored the feasibility, appropriate use and clinical implementation of echocardiographic strain imaging. Health care providers in cardiology from all levels of health care centres were encouraged to participate in this global survey. Results In all, 431 respondents from 77 countries participated. Most respondents worked within the cardiology and cardiothoracic departments (95%). Participants from tertiary centres (46%), and private clinics or public hospitals (54%) were also represented. Fifty eight percent of the participants were senior experienced echocardiographers, 40% were trained in strain imaging at an expert centre, 37% via research in strain imaging, 33% via the EACVI e-learning platform or hands-on courses and 29% via national teaching courses. Only 16% reported having no training. Despite almost universal access (98%) to speckle tracking strain quantification, only 39% performed and reported strain results frequently (more than half of their reports) and the majority (61%) reported it either infrequently (25–50% reports) or very rarely (<25% reports). The most common reason (65%) for not using the technology despite having access to it was related to post-processing difficulty. Strain quantification was used mainly to assess the left ventricle (LV)(99%), less frequently the right ventricle (RV)(57%), the left atrium (46%) and rarely the right atrium (8%). Eighty-six percent of users assessed LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) from the 3 apical views, with 88% preferring automated algorithms with manual correction to define the regions of interest. The most common clinical conditions where LV strain assessment was considered useful clinically included chemotoxicity (88%) amyloidosis (87%), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (73%), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (68%), ischaemic heart disease (63%) and the early phase of dilated cardiomyopathy (59%, Figure 1). Just over half of the respondents quantified RV strain in pulmonary hypertension. Finally, the key areas of improvements identified by the respondents included higher reproducibility of the results (48%) and the ability to readily compare strain values across vendors (42%) (Figure 2). Conclusion Strain imaging is now widely available and many imagers have been trained in its use. Although strain imaging is used in line with the scientific evidence, it is still underutilised in clinical practice. Improved reproducibility and interchangeability of results across vendors may increase the uptake of this technique.