Search

AIMS: One third of patients do not improve after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Septal flash (SF) and apical rocking (ApRock) are deformation patterns observed on echocardiography in most patients eligible for CRT. These markers of mechanical dyssynchrony have been associated to improved outcome after CRT in observational studies and may be useful to better select patients. The aim of this trial is to investigate whether the current guideline criteria for selecting patients for CRT should be modified and include SF and ApRock to improve therapy success rate, reduce excessive costs and prevent exposure to device-related complications in patients who would not benefit from CRT. METHODS: The AMEND-CRT trial is a multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, sham-controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. The trial will include 578 patients scheduled for CRT according to the 2021 ESC guidelines who satisfy all inclusion criteria. The randomization is performed 1:1 to an active control arm ('guideline arm') or an experimental arm ('echo arm'). All participants receive a device, but in the echo arm, CRT is activated only when SF or ApRock or both are present. The outcome of both arms will be compared after 1 year. The primary outcome measures are the average change in left ventricular end-systolic volume and patient outcome assessed using a modified Packer Clinical Composite Score. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this trial will redefine the role of echocardiography in CRT and potentially determine which patients with heart failure and a prolonged QRS duration should receive CRT, especially in patients who currently have a class IIa or class IIb recommendation.

Despite standardization efforts, vendors still use specific proprietary software algorithms for echocardiographic strain measurements, which result in high inter-vendor variability. Using vendor-independent software could be one solution. Little is known, however, how vendor specific image characteristics can influence tracking results of such software. We therefore investigated the reproducibility, accuracy, and scar detection ability of strain measurements on images from different vendors by using a vendor-independent software. A vendor-independent software (TomTec Image Arena) was used to analyse datasets of 63 patients which were obtained on machines from four different ultrasound machine vendors (GE, Philips, Siemens, Toshiba). We measured the tracking feasibility, inter-vendor bias, the relative test-re-test variability and scar discrimination ability of strain measurements. Cardiac magnetic resonance delayed enhancement images were used as the reference standard of scar definition. Tracking feasibility on vendor datasets were significantly different (p < 0.001). Variability of global longitudinal strain (GLS) measurements was similar among the vendors whereas variability of segmental longitudinal strain (SLS) showed modest difference. Relative test-re-test variability of GLS and SLS showed no relevant differences. No significant difference in scar detection capability was observed. Average GLS and SLS values were similar among vendors. Reproducibility of GLS measurements showed no difference among vendors and was in acceptable range. SLS reproducibility was high but similar for all vendors. No relevant difference was found for identifying regional dysfunction. Tracking feasibility showed a substantial difference among images from different vendors. Our findings demonstrate that tracking results depend mainly on the software used and show little influence from vendor specific image characteristics.

Background: Segmental longitudinal strain (SLS)is reported to be vendor specific. Despite standardization efforts, vendors still use different myocardial layers for strain measurements. It is unclear, however, which layer is the most favorable for clinical purposes. Therefore, in this study we evaluated the reproducibility, accuracy, and scar detection ability of SLS measurements from different myocardial layers. Methods: In data sets of 58 patients with prior myocardial infarction and five healthy volunteers, we measured the intervendor bias, the relative test-retest variability, and scar discrimination ability of endocardial and midwall SLS, using software packages from four different companies (GE, Siemens, Toshiba, and TomTec). Cardiac magnetic resonance delayed enhancement images were used as the reference standard of scar definition. Results: Variability of SLS measurements was significant among the vendors for both midwall and endocardium. In addition, relative errors of SLS measurements varied considerably among vendors (P <.001 for both layers). Comparisons of test-retest errors from different layers for individual vendors did not show any significant differences. Regardless of the vendor, both endocardial and midwall strain values were decreased in scarred segments. Endocardial to midwall ratio of strain measurements showed no difference between scar-free and scarred segments. Endocardial and midwall strain parameters showed no significant difference in scar detection capability. Conclusions: Layer-specific SLS measurements vary significantly among vendors. Endocardial and midwall SLS measurements have a high yet comparable test-retest variability. Combining layer-specific SLS measurements does not provide additional information for detection of regional functional abnormalities. Our results do not provide evidence to favor the use of one myocardial layer over another.

Objectives In this study, we compared left ventricular (LV) segmental strain measurements obtained with different ultrasound machines and post-processing software packages. Background Global longitudinal strain (GLS) has proven to be a reproducible and valuable tool in clinical practice. Data about the reproducibility and intervendor differences of segmental strain measurements, however, are missing. Methods We included 63 volunteers with cardiac magnetic resonance–proven infarct scar with segmental LV function ranging from normal to severely impaired. Each subject was examined within 2 h by a single expert sonographer with machines from multiple vendors. All 3 apical views were acquired twice to determine the test-retest and the intervendor variability. Segmental longitudinal peak systolic, end-systolic, and post-systolic strain were measured using 7 vendor-specific systems (Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan; Esaote, Florence, Italy; GE Vingmed Ultrasound, Horten, Norway; Philips, Andover, Massachusetts; Samsung, Seoul, South Korea; Siemens, Mountain View, California; and Toshiba, Otawara, Japan) and 2 independent software packages (Epsilon, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and TOMTEC, Unterschleissheim, Germany) and compared among vendors. Results Image quality and tracking feasibility differed among vendors (analysis of variance, p < 0.05). The absolute test-retest difference ranged from 2.5% to 4.9% for peak systolic, 2.6% to 5.0% for end-systolic, and 2.5% to 5.0% for post-systolic strain. The average segmental strain values varied significantly between vendors (up to 4.5%). Segmental strain parameters from each vendor correlated well with the mean of all vendors (r2 range 0.58 to 0.81) but showed very different ranges of values. Bias and limits of agreement were up to −4.6 ± 7.5%. Conclusions In contrast to GLS, LV segmental longitudinal strain measurements have a higher variability on top of the known intervendor bias. The fidelity of different software to follow segmental functi

Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of vendor-specific and independent strain analysis tools to detect regional myocardial function abnormality in a clinical setting. Background Speckle tracking echocardiography has been considered a promising tool for the quantitative assessment of regional myocardial function. However, the potential differences among speckle tracking software with regard to their accuracy in identifying regional abnormality has not been studied extensively. Methods Sixty-three subjects (5 healthy volunteers and 58 patients) were examined with 7 different ultrasound machines during 5 days. All patients had experienced a previous myocardial infarction, which was characterized by cardiac magnetic resonance with late gadolinium enhancement. Segmental peak systolic (PS), end-systolic (ES) and post-systolic strain (PSS) measurements were obtained with 6 vendor-specific software tools and 2 independent strain analysis tools. Strain parameters were compared between fully scarred and scar-free segments. Receiver-operating characteristic curves testing the ability of strain parameters and derived indexes to discriminate between these segments were compared among vendors. Results The average strain values calculated for normal segments ranged from −15.1% to −20.7% for PS, −14.9% to −20.6% for ES, and −16.1% to −21.4% for PSS. Significantly lower values of strain (p < 0.05) were found in segments with transmural scar by all vendors, with values ranging from −7.4% to −11.1% for PS, −7.7% to −10.8% for ES, and −10.5% to −14.3% for PSS. Accuracy in identifying transmural scar ranged from acceptable to excellent (area under the curve 0.74 to 0.83 for PS and ES and 0.70 to 0.78 for PSS). Significant differences were found among vendors (p < 0.05). All vendors had a significantly lower accuracy to detect scars in the basal segments compared with scars in the apex (p < 0.05). Conclusions The accuracy of identifying regional abno

Background: Despite standardization efforts, vendors still use information from different myocardial layers to calculate global longitudinal strain ( GLS). Little is known about potential advantages or disadvantages of using these different layers in clinical practice. The authors therefore investigated the reproducibility and accuracy of GLS measurements from different myocardial layers.Methods: Sixty-three subjects were prospectively enrolled, in whom the intervendor bias and test-retest variability of endocardial GLS ( E-GLS) and midwall GLS ( M-GLS) were calculated, using software packages from five vendors that allow layer-specific GLS calculation ( GE, Hitachi, Siemens, Toshiba, and TomTec). The impact of tracking quality and the interdependence of strain values from different layers were assessed by comparing test-retest errors between layers.Results: For both E-GLS and M-GLS, significant bias was found among vendors. Relative test-retest variability of E-GLS values differed significantly among vendors, whereas M-GLS showed no significant difference ( range, 5.4%-9.5% [ P =.032] and 7.0%-11.2% [ P =.200], respectively). Within-vendor test-retest variability was similar between E-GLS and M-GLS for all but one vendor. Absolute test-retest errors were highly correlated between E-GLS and M-GLS for all vendors.Conclusions: E-GLS and M-GLS measurements showed no relevant differences in robustness among vendors, although intervendor bias was higher for M-GLS compared with E-GLS. These data provide no technical argument in favor of a certain myocardial layer for global left ventricular functional assessment. Currently, the choice of which layer to use should therefore be based on the available clinical evidence in the literature. ( J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2018; 31: 374-80.)

AIMS: Foreshortening of apical views is a common problem in echocardiography. It results in an abnormally thick false apex and a shortened left ventricular (LV) long axis. We sought to evaluate the impact of foreshortened (FS) on LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and layer-specific 2D speckle tracking based segmental (S) and global (G) longitudinal strain (LS) measurements. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined 72 participants using a GE Vivid E9 system. FS apical views were collected from an imaging window one rib-space higher than the optimal images. Ejection fraction as well as layer-specific GLS and SLS measurements were analysed by GE EchoPAC v201 and TomTec Image Arena 4.6 and compared between optimal and FS images. On average, LV long axis was 10% shorter in FS images than in optimal images. FS induced a relative change in LVEF of 3.3% and 6.9% for GE and TomTec, respectively (both, P < 0.001). Endocardial GLS was 9.0% higher with GE and 23.2% with TomTec (P < 0.001). Midwall GLS measurements were less affected (7.8% for GE and 14.1% for TomTec, respectively, both P < 0.001). Segmental strain analysis revealed that the mid-ventricular and apical segments were more affected by foreshortening, and endocardial measurements were more affected than midwall. CONCLUSION: Optimal image geometry is crucial for accurate LV function assessment. Foreshorhening of apical views has a substantial impact on longitudinal strain measurements, predominantly in the apex and in the endocardial layer. Our data suggest that measuring midwall strain might therefore be the more robust approach for clinical routine use. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.