Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T02:01:46.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional echocardiographic strain in children with CHD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2017

Bethany L. Wisotzkey
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
Brian D. Soriano
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
Sujatha Buddhe*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
*
Correspondence to: S. Buddhe, MD, MS, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Seattle Children’s Hospital, 4800 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98105, United States of America. Tel: +1 206 987 1083; Fax: +1 206 987 3839; E-mail: Sujatha.buddhe@seattlechildrens.org
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

In CHD, three-dimensional strain analysis may overcome limitations of Doppler and two-dimensional strain of the left ventricle. The aims of this study were to evaluate feasibility and reproducibility of three-dimensional longitudinal, circumferential, and radial systolic strain by three-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography compared with two-dimensional echocardiography.

Methods

Patients with CHD, biventricular circulation with a systemic left ventricle, and who had two- and three-dimensional imaging performed on the same day from 2010 to 2014 were included. Quantitative two- and three-dimensional strain analyses were performed (two-dimensional cardiac performance analysis version 1.2 and four-dimensional left ventricular analysis version 3.1). Intra- and inter-observer variabilities were calculated on 25 studies.

Results

A total of 30 patients, including 19 (61%) males, with a median age of 3.6 years (0.1–22 years) were included. The mean fractional shortening was 34.6±5.3%, and the mean ejection fraction was 62.0±6.4%. Measurement of two- and three-dimensional strain was feasible in >95% of segments. Good correlation was observed between longitudinal and circumferential strain (r=0.92, p⩽0.001 and r=0.87, p⩽0.001), but not radial strain (r=0.29, p=0.2). Intra- and inter-observer agreements were better for three-dimensional compared with two-dimensional strain, and better for both two- and three-dimensional longitudinal and circumferential strains compared with radial strain.

Conclusion

Left ventricular three-dimensional strain analysis is feasible in children with CHD. The reproducibility of longitudinal and circumferential strain by three-dimensional analyses is better. Further longitudinal studies are warranted for the potential clinical application of this new technology.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 
Figure 0

Figure 1 (a) Representative two-dimensional (2D) speckle-tracking imaging in the apical four-chamber view (left) and LS tracking (right), and (b) representative 2D speckle-tracking imaging in the parasternal short-axis view, at the level of the papillary muscle, view (left), and CS tracking (right), and (c) representative three-dimensional speckle-tracking imaging (left) and LS tracking (right). CS=circumferential strain; LS=longitudinal strain.

Figure 1

Table 1 Summary of patient characteristics.

Figure 2

Table 2 Traditional and strain echocardiographic parameters.

Figure 3

Figure 2 Graph showing correlation between two-dimensional fractional shortening (FS) and ejection fraction (EF).

Figure 4

Table 3 Summary of correlations.

Figure 5

Figure 3 Summary of variability and correlations between two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) speckle-tracking imaging. (a) Correlation of 2D and 3D longitudinal strain (LS). (b) Bland–Altman plot showing inter-observer agreement of 2D and 3D LS. (c) Correlation of 2D and 3D circumferential strain (CS). (d) Bland–Altman plot showing inter-observer agreement of 2D and 3D CS. (e) Correlation of 2D and 3D radial strain (RS). (f) Bland–Altman plot showing inter-observer agreement of 2D and 3D RS.

Figure 6

Table 4 Variability for two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) strain.