We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Multilayer global longitudinal strain in patients with cancer: A comparison of two vendors.
Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases 2018 April
BACKGROUND: Global longitudinal strain (GLS) has several sources of variation. Strain multilayer tracking is a new tool that has not yet been validated in clinical practice.
AIM: The purpose of this study was to investigate intervendor variability when measuring multilayer strain in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer.
METHODS: Patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer, who were referred for echocardiography, were included prospectively. First, the same operator performed two-dimensional echocardiography on each patient using the Vivid E9™ (General Electric, Fairfield, CT, USA) and the ACUSON SC2000™ (Siemens, Munich, Germany) ultrasound systems. Second, we assessed myocardial deformation by using their respective speckle-tracking software. Third, we compared absolute values of GLS for the two vendors in each apical view (four-, three- and two-chamber) and for each layer (endocardial, mid-myocardial and epicardial).
RESULTS: Eighty patients with cancer were included prospectively between February and June 2015. For a given vendor, GLS values decreased from the endocardial layer to the epicardial layer. For a given view, GLS values obtained with the ACUSON SC2000 platform were systematically lower than those obtained with the Vivid E9 platform (P<0.0001). We observed a significant difference between the two platforms, irrespective of the layer, interlayer gradient or chamber view considered (P<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: There was poor agreement for layer-specific strain evaluation between the Vivid E9 and ACUSON SC2000 platforms, using their dedicated software for strain multilayer assessment. These results suggest that, in clinical practice, the same system and software from the same vendor should be used for longitudinal follow-up.
AIM: The purpose of this study was to investigate intervendor variability when measuring multilayer strain in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer.
METHODS: Patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer, who were referred for echocardiography, were included prospectively. First, the same operator performed two-dimensional echocardiography on each patient using the Vivid E9™ (General Electric, Fairfield, CT, USA) and the ACUSON SC2000™ (Siemens, Munich, Germany) ultrasound systems. Second, we assessed myocardial deformation by using their respective speckle-tracking software. Third, we compared absolute values of GLS for the two vendors in each apical view (four-, three- and two-chamber) and for each layer (endocardial, mid-myocardial and epicardial).
RESULTS: Eighty patients with cancer were included prospectively between February and June 2015. For a given vendor, GLS values decreased from the endocardial layer to the epicardial layer. For a given view, GLS values obtained with the ACUSON SC2000 platform were systematically lower than those obtained with the Vivid E9 platform (P<0.0001). We observed a significant difference between the two platforms, irrespective of the layer, interlayer gradient or chamber view considered (P<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: There was poor agreement for layer-specific strain evaluation between the Vivid E9 and ACUSON SC2000 platforms, using their dedicated software for strain multilayer assessment. These results suggest that, in clinical practice, the same system and software from the same vendor should be used for longitudinal follow-up.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app