↓ Skip to main content

In-vivo validation of a new clinical tool to quantify three-dimensional myocardial strain using ultrasound

Overview of attention for article published in The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
In-vivo validation of a new clinical tool to quantify three-dimensional myocardial strain using ultrasound
Published in
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10554-016-0962-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Bouchez, B. Heyde, D. Barbosa, M. Vandenheuvel, H. Houle, Y. Wang, J. D’hooge, P. F. Wouters

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) strain analysis based on real-time 3-D echocardiography (RT3DE) has emerged as a novel technique to quantify regional myocardial function. The goal of this study was to evaluate accuracy of a novel model-based 3D tracking tool (eSie Volume Mechanics, Siemens Ultrasound, Mountain View, CA, USA) using sonomicrometry as an independent measure of cardiac deformation. Thirteen sheep were instrumented with microcrystals sutured to the epi- and endocardium of the inferolateral left ventricular wall to trace myocardial deformation along its three directional axes of motion. Paired acquisitions of RT3DE and sonomicrometry were made at baseline, during inotropic modulation and during myocardial ischemia. Accuracy of 3D strain measurements was quantified and expressed as level of agreement with sonomicrometry using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Correlations between 3D strain analysis and sonomicrometry were good for longitudinal and circumferential strain components (r = 0.78 and r = 0.71) but poor for radial strain (r = 0.30). Accordingly, agreement (bias ± 2SD) was -5 ± 6 % for longitudinal, -5 ± 7 % for circumferential, and 15 ± 19 % for radial strain. Intra-observer variability was low for all components (intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) of respectively 0.89, 0.88 and 0.95) while inter-observer variability was higher, in particular for radial strain (ICC = 0.41). The present study shows that 3D strain analysis provided good estimates of circumferential and longitudinal strain, while estimates of radial strain were less accurate between observers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 67%
Student > Bachelor 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 17%
Engineering 1 17%
Unknown 2 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#1,460
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#313,862
of 354,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#28
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.