BackgroundCardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) is increasingly used for myocardial deformation assessment including ventricular strain, showing prognostic value beyond established risk markers if used in experienced centres. Little is known about the impact of appropriate training on CMR-FT performance. Consequently, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of training on observer variance using different commercially available CMR-FT software.MethodsIntra- and inter-observer reproducibility was assessed prior to and after dedicated one-hour observer training. Employed FT software included 3 different commercially available platforms (TomTec, Medis, Circle). Left (LV) and right (RV) ventricular global longitudinal as well as LV circumferential and radial strains (GLS, GCS and GRS) were studied in 12 heart failure patients and 12 healthy volunteers.ResultsTraining improved intra- and inter-observer reproducibility. GCS and LV GLS showed the highest reproducibility before (ICC >0.86 and >0.81) and after training (ICC >0.91 and >0.92). RV GLS and GRS were more susceptible to tracking inaccuracies and reproducibility was lower. Inter-observer reproducibility was lower than intra-observer reproducibility prior to training with more pronounced improvements after training. Before training, LV strain reproducibility was lower in healthy volunteers as compared to patients with no differences after training. Whilst LV strain reproducibility was sufficient within individual software solutions inter-software comparisons revealed considerable software related variance.ConclusionObserver experience is an important source of variance in CMR-FT derived strain assessment. Dedicated observer training significantly improves reproducibility with most profound benefits in states of high myocardial contractility and potential to facilitate widespread clinical implementation due to optimized robustness and diagnostic performance.

Myocardial feature-tracking (FT) deformation imaging is superior for risk stratification compared with volumetric approaches. Because there is no clear recommendation regarding FT postprocessing, we compared different FT-strain analyses with reference standard techniques, including tagging and strain-encoded (SENC) MRI. Methods: Feature-tracking software from four different vendors (TomTec, Medis, Circle [CVI], and Neosoft), tagging (Segment), and fastSENC (MyoStrain) were used to determine left ventricular global circumferential strains (GCS) and longitudinal strains (GLS) in 12 healthy volunteers and 12 patients with heart failure. Variability and agreements were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients for absolute agreement (ICCa) and consistency (ICCc) as well as Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: For FT-GCS, consistency was excellent comparing different FT vendors

Background Myocardial deformation analyses using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) feature tracking (CMR-FT) have incremental value in the assessment of cardiac function beyond volumetric analyses. Since guidelines do not recommend specific imaging parameters, we aimed to define optimal spatial and temporal resolutions for CMR cine images to enable reliable post-processing. Methods Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility was assessed in 12 healthy subjects and 9 heart failure (HF) patients. Cine images were acquired with different temporal (20, 30, 40 and 50 frames/cardiac cycle) and spatial resolutions (high in-plane 1.5 × 1.5 mm through-plane 5 mm, standard 1.8 × 1.8 x 8mm and low 3.0 × 3.0 x 10mm). CMR-FT comprised left ventricular (LV) global and segmental longitudinal/circumferential strain (GLS/GCS) and associated systolic strain rates (SR), and right ventricular (RV) GLS. Results Temporal but not spatial resolution did impact absolute strain and SR. Maximum absolute changes between lowest and highest temporal resolution were as follows: 1.8% and 0.3%/s for LV GLS and SR, 2.5% and 0.6%/s for GCS and SR as well as 1.4% for RV GLS. Changes of strain values occurred comparing 20 and 30 frames/cardiac cycle including LV and RV GLS and GCS (p < 0.001–0.046). In contrast, SR values (LV GLS/GCS SR) changed significantly comparing all successive temporal resolutions (p < 0.001–0.013). LV strain and SR reproducibility was not affected by either temporal or spatial resolution, whilst RV strain variability decreased with augmentation of temporal resolution. Conclusion Temporal but not spatial resolution significantly affects strain and SR in CMR-FT deformation analyses. Strain analyses require lower temporal resolution and 30 frames/cardiac cycle offer consistent strain assessments, whilst SR measurements gain from further increases in temporal resolution.