Use of three-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography for quantitative assessment of global left ventricular function: a comparative study to three-dimensional echocardiography.
Luis S, Yamada A, Chan J, et al. Use of three-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography for quantitative assessment of global left ventricular function: a comparative study to three-dimensional echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 Mar; 27(3):285-91.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether global strains derived from three-dimensional (3D) speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) are as accurate as left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) obtained by two-dimensional (2D) and 3D echocardiography in the quantification of LV function.
METHODS: Two-dimensional and 3D echocardiography and 2D and 3D STE were performed in 88 patients (LVEF range, 17%-79%). Two-dimensional and 3D global longitudinal strain (GLS), global circumferential strain (GCS), global radial strain, and global area strain were quantified and correlated with LV function determined by 2D and 3D echocardiographic LVEF. Reproducibility, feasibility, and duration of study to perform 3D STE were assessed by independent, blinded observers.
RESULTS: A total of 78 patients (89%) underwent 3D STE. All 3D speckle-tracking echocardiographic parameters had strong correlations with assessment of LV function determined by 2D and 3D echocardiographic LVEF. Three-dimensional GCS was the best marker of LV function (r = -0.89, P < .0001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that 3D speckle-tracking echocardiographic parameters were particularly useful in identifying LV dysfunction (LVEF < 50%). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated areas under the curve of 0.97 for 3D GCS, 0.96 for 3D global radial strain, 0.95 for 3D global area strain, and 0.87 for 3D GLS. An optimal 3D GCS cutoff value of magnitude < -12% predicted LV dysfunction (LVEF obtained by 2D echocardiography < 50%) with 92% sensitivity and 90% specificity. There was good correlation between 2D GLS and 3D GLS (r = 0.85, P < .001; mean difference, -1.7 ± 6.5%). Good intraobserver, interobserver, and test-retest agreements were seen with 3D STE. Time for image acquisition to postprocessing analysis was significantly reduced with 3D STE (3.7 ± 1.0 minutes) compared with 2D STE (4.6 ± 1.5 min) (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Global strain by 3D STE is a promising novel alternative to quantitatively assess LV function. Three-dimensional STE is reproducible, feasible, and time efficient.