Background: Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is an accurate and reproducible parameter of left ventricular (LV) systolic function which has shown meaningful prognostic value. Fast, user-friendly, and accurate tools are required for its widespread implementation. We aim to compare a novel web-based tool with two established algorithms for strain analysis and test its reproducibility.
Methods: Thirty echocardiographic datasets with focused LV acquisitions were analyzed using three different semi-automated endocardial GLS algorithms by two readers. Analyses were repeated by one reader for the purpose of intra-observer variability. CAAS Qardia (Pie Medical Imaging) was compared with 2DCPA and AutoLV (TomTec).
Results: Mean GLS values were -15.0 ± 3.5% from Qardia, -15.3 ± 4.0% from 2DCPA, and -15.2 ± 3.8% from AutoLV. Mean GLS between Qardia and 2DCPA were not statistically different (p = 0.359), with a bias of -0.3%, limits of agreement (LOA) of 3.7%, and an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.88. Mean GLS between Qardia and AutoLV were not statistically different (p = 0.637), with a bias of -0.2%, LOA of 3.4%, and an ICC of 0.89. The coefficient of variation (CV) for intra-observer variability was 4.4% for Qardia, 8.4% 2DCPA, and 7.7% AutoLV. The CV for inter-observer variability was 4.5%, 8.1%, and 8.0%, respectively.
Conclusions: In echocardiographic datasets of good image quality analyzed at an independent core laboratory using a standardized annotation method, a novel web-based tool for GLS analysis showed consistent results when compared with two algorithms of an established platform. Moreover, inter- and intra-observer reproducibility results were excellent.
Keywords: Core Lab; Echocardiography; Left ventricular global longitudinal strain; Reproducibility; Validation.
Copyright © 2023 Korean Society of Echocardiography.