Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/46183
Title: Vendor differences in 2D-speckle tracking global longitudinal strain: an update on a 10-year standardization effort
Authors: Balinisteanu, Anca
DUCHENNE, Jürgen 
Puvrez, Alexis
Wouters , Laurine
Bezy, Stephanie
Youssef, Ahmed
Minten, Lennert
BEKHUIS, Youri 
Van Langenhoven, Leen
Papangelopoulou, Konstantina
Cieplucha, Aleksandra
Cattapan, Irene
Tostes, Paulo
Bogaert, Jan
Vinereanu, Dragos
Thomas, James D.
Badano, Luigi P.
Voigt, Jens-Uwe
Issue Date: 2025
Publisher: OXFORD UNIV PRESS
Source: European Heart Journal-Cardiovascular Imaging,
Status: Early view
Abstract: Aims To assess the inter-vendor differences in global longitudinal strain measurements and determine a potential improvement compared with the situation 10 years ago. Methods and results 372 echocardiographic exams were performed in 62 subjects (50 male, age 56 +/- 17) with LV ejection fraction ranging from 30% to 68%, using ultrasound systems from six manufacturers: GE, Philips, Canon, Siemens, Fujifilm and Esaote. Each subject was scanned consecutively on all machines by the same assigned sonographer, with two image sets per subject to assess test-retest setting reproducibility. Average peak systolic global strain from the three apical views (GLS(AV)) was measured on three vendor-specific (Canon, Siemens, and Fujifilm) and six vendor-agnostic (GE, Philips, US2.AI, Caas Qardia, Medis, and Epsilon) software solutions (SWS). Endocardial and mid-/full-wall GLS were measured and compared with the mean GLS of contemporary semi-automated clinical software: GE, Philips, Canon, Fujifilm, and Caas Qardia. Endocardial and mid-/full-wall GLS measurements from contemporary semi-automated clinical software showed minimal inter-vendor differences, with an average maximum bias of 0.6% strain units. There was a remaining inter-vendor bias with and among some other vendors. The average minimal detectable change with contemporary semi-automated clinical software was 2.5 and 2.4 strain% for endocardial and mid-/full-wall GLS, resp. These values were higher for and among some other vendors. Test-retest variability of GLS measurements was good and similar to that of LV ejection fraction (6.6% vs. 6.5%, P > 0.05), indicating consistent results across repeated scans. Conclusion In this controlled study setting, GLS measurements from companies that provide contemporary semi-automated clinical software have become more consistent, compared with 10 years ago. Mid-/full-wall strain was now available in all but one software.
Notes: Voigt, JU (corresponding author), Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Cardiovasc Sci, Herestr 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.
jens-uwe.voigt@uzleuven.be
Keywords: strain;speckle-tracking echocardiography;inter-vendor;left ventricle;standardization
Document URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/46183
ISSN: 2047-2404
e-ISSN: 2047-2412
DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jeaf155
ISI #: 001499345900001
Rights: The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.
Category: A1
Type: Journal Contribution
Appears in Collections:Research publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Vendor differences in 2D-speckle tracking global longitudinal strain_ an update on a 10-year standardization effort.pdf
  Restricted Access
Early view1.94 MBAdobe PDFView/Open    Request a copy
ACFrOgDmJq70X12YGx-R-_aN70NYWF5eWRImEiyBfN8lcgHoDLo50nawxAMxctINv_.pdf
  Until 2025-11-26
Peer-reviewed author version4.52 MBAdobe PDFView/Open    Request a copy
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.