Left ventricular strain measured by feature‑tracking cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 2D speckle‑tracking echocardiography in chronic ischemic heart disease: an intermodality agreement study
10.1186/s44348-026-00065-w
- Author:
Shimaa Sayed KHIDR
1
;
Ahmed ABDEL‑GALEEL
;
Mohamed ABDELLATIF
;
Abdulrahman HAMDAN
;
Yehia Taha KISHK
Author Information
1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut Univer‑ sity, Assiut, Egypt
- Publication Type:RESEARCH
- From:
Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
2026;34(1):8-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a valuable tool for assessing left ventricular (LV) systolic function, detecting subclinical dysfunction earlier than classic ejection fraction. Two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocar‑ diography (2D-STE) is widely used due to its accessibility and high temporal resolution, whereas feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance (FT-CMR) offers superior spatial resolution and reproducibility. In this study, we assess the relationships between longitudinal strain measurements obtained by 2D-STE and FT-CMR in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease (IHD).
Methods:Fifty-five patients with IHD and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 49% underwent 2D-STE and FTCMR at least 3 months after an acute coronary event. Global and segmental longitudinal strain for all 17 myocardial segments was measured using both modalities. Pearson correlation and Bland–Altman analysis were used to assess correlation and agreement, respectively.
Results:GLS showed a strong correlation between 2D-STE and FT-CMR (r = 0.793, P < 0.001), with a mean difference of 0.98% and limits of agreement from –3.2% to + 5.1%. Segmental strain demonstrated greater variability (r = 0.03 to 0.47), with the best agreement in mid and apical segments and greatest discrepancies at the basal level.
Conclusions:In patients with IHD and reduced LVEF, GLS obtained by FT-CMR and 2D-STE showed strong correla‑ tion and acceptable overall agreement. However, the relatively wide limits of agreement and variability in segmental strain, particularly in basal regions, indicate that the two methods are not fully interchangeable for individual assess‑ ment and follow-up. Both techniques reflect similar physiological trends but differ in absolute values, requiring cau‑ tion in regional strain interpretation.
