Comparison of DeepStrain and Feature Tracking for Cardiac MRI Strain Analysis. Issue 5 (28th July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Morales, Manuel A.; Cirillo, Julia; Nakata, Kei; Kucukseymen, Selcuk; Ngo, Long H.; Izquierdo‐Garcia, David; Catana, Ciprian; Nezafat, Reza
• Is Part Of: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging. Volume 57:Issue 5(2023)
• Page Start: 1507
• Page End: 1515
• Publication Date: 2022-07-28
• Subjects: myocardial strain -- feature tracking -- deep learning -- automated; Magnetic resonance imaging -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28374
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1053-1807

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Myocardial feature tracking (FT) provides a comprehensive analysis of myocardial deformation from cine balanced steady‐state free‐precession images (bSSFP). However, FT remains time‐consuming, precluding its clinical adoption. Purpose: To compare left‐ventricular global radial strain (GRS) and global circumferential strain (GCS) values measured using automated DeepStrain analysis of short‐axis cine images to those calculated using manual commercially available FT analysis. Study Type: Retrospective, single‐center. Population: A total of 30 healthy subjects and 120 patients with cardiac disease for DeepStrain development. For evaluation, 47 healthy subjects (36 male, 53 ± 5 years) and 533 patients who had undergone a clinical cardiac MRI (373 male, 59 ± 14 years). Field Strength/Sequence: bSSFP sequence at 1.5 T (Phillips) and 3 T (Siemens). Assessment: Automated DeepStrain measurements of GRS and GCS were compared to commercially available FT (Circle, cvi42) measures obtained by readers with 1 year and 3 years of experience. Comparisons were performed overall and stratified by scanner manufacturer. Statistical Tests: Paired t ‐test, linear regression slope, Pearson correlation coefficient ( r ). Results: Overall, FT and DeepStrain measurements of GCS were not significantly different ( P = 0.207), but measures of GRS were significantly different. Measurements of GRS from Philips (slope = 1.06 [1.03 1.08], r = 0.85) and Siemens (slope = 1.04 [0.99 1.09], r = 0.83) data showed a very strong correlation and agreement between techniques. Measurements of GCS from Philips (slope = 0.98 [0.98 1.01], r = 0.91) and Siemens (slope = 1.0 [0.96 1.03], r = 0.88) data similarly showed a very strong correlation. The average analysis time per subject was 4.1 ± 1.2 minutes for FT and 34.7 ± 3.3 seconds for DeepStrain, representing a 7‐fold reduction in analysis time. Data Conclusion: This study demonstrated high correlation of myocardial GCS and GRS measurements between freely available fully automated DeepStrain and commercially available manual FT software, with substantial time‐saving in the analysis. Evidence Level: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3