Advertisement

Two-Dimensional Strain is more Precise than Conventional Measures of Left Ventricular Systolic Function in Pediatric Patients

  • Meghna D. PatelEmail author
  • Craig Myers
  • Kazuaki Negishi
  • Gautam K. Singh
  • Shafkat Anwar
Original Article
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Ejection fraction (EF) and fractional shortening (FS) are standard methods of quantifying left ventricular (LV) systolic function. 2D global longitudinal strain (2D GLS) is a well-established, but underutilized method for LV function quantification. The aim of this study was to assess precision of GLS compared to EF & FS in pediatrics. Echocardiograms were prospectively analyzed by 2 blinded observers. FS, EF, and GLS were calculated following standard methods. Bland–Altman was applied to assess agreement. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to measure reliability. Coefficient of variation was used to demonstrate relative variability between methods. 103 pediatric echos were evaluated for inter-observer reproducibility, and 15 patients for intra-observer reproducibility. GLS had higher inter-observer agreement and reliability (bias 7%, 95% LOA − 3.4 to + 3.5, ICC 0.86 CI 0.80–0.90) compared to EF (bias 27%, 95% LOA − 18.9 to + 19.5; ICC 0.25 CI 0.07–0.43) and FS (bias 12%, 95% LOA − 11.9 to + 12.2; ICC 0.53 CI 0.38–0.66). GLS also had higher intra-observer agreement (bias 4%, 95% LOA − 3.6 to + 3.7; ICC 0.87 CI 0.66–0.96) compared to EF (bias 11%, 95% LOA − 14.9 to + 15.1; ICC 0.26 CI −  0.28–0.67) and FS (bias 12%, 95% LOA − 12.2 to + 12.5; ICC 0.38 CI − 0.15–0.74). GLS is a more precise method for quantifying LV function in pediatrics, with lower variability compared to EF and FS. GLS provides a more reliable evaluation of LV systolic function and should be utilized more widely in pediatrics.

Keywords

Two-dimensional strain Echocardiography Left ventricular systolic function Cardiac deformation Pediatrics 

Abbreviations

GLS

Global longitudinal Lagrangian strain

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficient

CV

Coefficient of variation

2D STE

Two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography

LV

Left ventricular

Obs

Observer

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the sonographers and staff at the Heart Station, St. Louis Children’s Hospital for their contributions to echocardiographic acquisitions related to this study.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Wood PW, Choy JB, Nanda NC, Becher H (2014) Left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes: it depends on the imaging method. Echocardiography 31:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Picard MH, Popp RL, Weyman AE (2008) Assessment of left ventricular function by echocardiography: a technique in evolution. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 21:14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cameli M, Mondillo S, Solari M et al (2016) Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular systolic function: from ejection fraction to torsion. Heart Fail Rev 21:77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sugimoto T, Dulgheru R, Bernard A et al (2017) Echocardiographic reference ranges for normal left ventricular 2D strain: results from the EACVI NORRE study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 18:833–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yingchoncharoen T, Agarwal S, Popović ZB, Marwick TH (2013) Normal ranges of left ventricular strain: a meta-analysis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 26:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jashari H, Rydberg A, Ibrahimi P et al (2015) Normal ranges of left ventricular strain in children: a meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Ultrasound 13:37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy PT, Machefsky A, Sanchez AA et al (2016) Reference ranges of left ventricular strain measures by two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 29(209–225):e6Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ari ME, Cetin II, Kocabas A, Ekici F, Ceylan O, Surucu M (2016) Decreased deformation in asymptomatic children with isolated left ventricular non-compaction and normal ejection fraction. Pediatr Cardiol 37:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thavendiranathan P, Poulin F, Lim KD, Plana JC, Woo A, Marwick TH (2014) Use of myocardial strain imaging by echocardiography for the early detection of cardiotoxicity in patients during and after cancer chemotherapy: a systematic review. J Am Coll Cardiol 63:2751–2768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dandel M, Hetzer R (2017) Post-transplant surveillance for acute rejection and allograft vasculopathy by echocardiography: usefulness of myocardial velocity and deformation imaging. J Heart Lung Transplant 36:117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gunasekaran P, Panaich S, Briasoulis A, Cardozo S, Afonso L (2017) Incremental value of two dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography in the functional assessment and characterization of subclinical left ventricular dysfunction. Curr Cardiol Rev 13:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalam K, Otahal P, Marwick TH (2014) Prognostic implications of global LV dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of global longitudinal strain and ejection fraction. Heart 100:1673–1680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lopez L, Colan SD, Frommelt PC et al (2010) Recommendations for quantification methods during the performance of a pediatric echocardiogram: a report from the Pediatric Measurements Writing Group of the American Society of Echocardiography Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease Council. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 23:465–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V et al (2015) Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 28(1–39):e14Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Systems GM (2008). In: Systems GM (ed) EchoPAC PC user manuel, 1st edn. General Electric Co., Boston, pp. 1–627.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lorch SM, Ludomirsky A, Singh GK (2008) Maturational and growth-related changes in left ventricular longitudinal strain and strain rate measured by two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography in healthy pediatric population. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 21:1207–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takigiku K, Takeuchi M, Izumi C et al (2012) Normal range of left ventricular 2-dimensional strain: Japanese Ultrasound Speckle Tracking of the Left Ventricle (JUSTICE) study. Circ J 76:2623–2632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang H, Marwick TH, Fukuda N et al (2015) Improvement in strain concordance between two major vendors after the strain standardization initiative. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 28(642–8):e7Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee CK, Margossian R, Sleeper LA et al (2014) Variability of M-mode versus two-dimensional echocardiography measurements in children with dilated cardiomyopathy. Pediatr Cardiol 35:658–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Margossian R, Chen S, Sleeper LA et al (2015) The reproducibility and absolute values of echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular size and function in children are algorithm dependent. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 28(549–558):e1Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen S, Selamet Tierney ES, Khush KK et al (2015) Reliability of echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular systolic function in potential pediatric heart transplant donors. J Heart Lung Transplant 34:100–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Korinek J, Wang J, Sengupta PP et al (2005) Two-dimensional strain—a Doppler-independent ultrasound method for quantitation of regional deformation: validation in vitro and in vivo. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 18:1247–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Amundsen BH, Helle-Valle T, Edvardsen T et al (2006) Noninvasive myocardial strain measurement by speckle tracking echocardiography: validation against sonomicrometry and tagged magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 47:789–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Geyer H, Caracciolo G, Abe H et al (2010) Assessment of myocardial mechanics using speckle tracking echocardiography: fundamentals and clinical applications. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 23:351–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Risum N, Ali S, Olsen NT et al (2012) Variability of global left ventricular deformation analysis using vendor dependent and independent two-dimensional speckle-tracking software in adults. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 25:1195–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Takahashi M, Harada N, Isozaki Y et al (2013) Efficiency of quantitative longitudinal peak systolic strain values using automated function imaging on transthoracic echocardiogram for evaluating left ventricular wall motion: new diagnostic criteria and agreement with naked eye evaluation by experienced cardiologist. Int J Cardiol 167:1625–1631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stanton T, Leano R, Marwick TH (2009) Prediction of all-cause mortality from global longitudinal speckle strain: comparison with ejection fraction and wall motion scoring. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2:356–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pignatelli RH, Ghazi P, Reddy SC et al (2015) Abnormal myocardial strain indices in children receiving anthracycline chemotherapy. Pediatr Cardiol 36:1610–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Poterucha JT, Kutty S, Lindquist RK, Li L, Eidem BW (2012) Changes in left ventricular longitudinal strain with anthracycline chemotherapy in adolescents precede subsequent decreased left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 25:733–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Florescu M, Magda LS, Enescu OA, Jinga D, Vinereanu D (2014) Early detection of epirubicin-induced cardiotoxicity in patients with breast cancer. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 27:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Negishi K, Negishi T, Haluska BA, Hare JL, Plana JC, Marwick TH (2014) Use of speckle strain to assess left ventricular responses to cardiotoxic chemotherapy and cardioprotection. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 15:324–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sarvari SI, Gjesdal O, Gude E et al (2012) Early postoperative left ventricular function by echocardiographic strain is a predictor of 1-year mortality in heart transplant recipients. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 25:1007–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ruotsalainen H, Bellsham-Revell H, Bell A, Pihkala J, Ojala T, Simpson J (2016) Right ventricular systolic function in hypoplastic left heart syndrome: a comparison of velocity vector imaging and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 17:687–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ghelani SJ, Harrild DM, Gauvreau K, Geva T, Rathod RH (2016) Echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging based strain analysis of functional single ventricles: a study of intra- and inter-modality reproducibility. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 32:1113–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schlangen J, Petko C, Hansen JH et al (2014) Two-dimensional global longitudinal strain rate is a preload independent index of systemic right ventricular contractility in hypoplastic left heart syndrome patients after Fontan operation. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 7:880–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Anwar S, Negishi K, Borowszki A et al (2017) Comparison of two-dimensional strain analysis using vendor-independent and vendor-specific software in adult and pediatric patients. JRSM Cardiovasc Dis 6:2048004017712862PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Voigt JU, Pedrizzetti G, Lysyansky P et al (2015) Definitions for a common standard for 2D speckle tracking echocardiography: consensus document of the EACVI/ASE/Industry Task Force to standardize deformation imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 28:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shiino K, Yamada A, Ischenko M et al (2017) Intervendor consistency and reproducibility of left ventricular 2D global and regional strain with two different high-end ultrasound systems. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 18:707–716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nagata Y, Takeuchi M, Mizukoshi K et al (2015) Intervendor variability of two-dimensional strain using vendor-specific and vendor-independent software. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 28:630–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mirea O, Pagourelias ED, Duchenne J et al (2017) Variability and Reproducibility of segmental longitudinal strain measurement: a report from the EACVI-ASE Strain Standardization Task Force. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 11(1):15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Cardiology, Department of PediatricsWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Menzies Institute for Medical ResearchUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  3. 3.Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Lucile Packard Children’s HospitalStanford UniversityPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations