Speckle tracking echocardiography in healthy children: comparison between the QLAB by Philips and the EchoPAC by General Electric

Pascal Amedro, Charlene Bredy, Sophie Guillaumont, Gregoire De La Villeon, Lucie Gamon, Kathleen Lavastre, Albano C Meli, Sylvain Richard, Olivier Cazorla, Alain Lacampagne, Thibault Mura, Marie Vincenti, Pascal Amedro, Charlene Bredy, Sophie Guillaumont, Gregoire De La Villeon, Lucie Gamon, Kathleen Lavastre, Albano C Meli, Sylvain Richard, Olivier Cazorla, Alain Lacampagne, Thibault Mura, Marie Vincenti

Abstract

Speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) has become a useful tool in cardiology but remains scarcely developed in pediatrics. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of STE analyses in healthy children and compare reliability of STE for left and right ventricles (LV, RV) between the EchoPAC (GE Healthcare) and the QLAB (Philips Healthcare) software systems. Healthy children were screened for this prospective cross-sectional study. Analyses were performed upon five levels of variability: intra/inter-ultrasound system, intra/inter-sonographer and intra/inter-analyzer. The feasibility was measured, and the tracking quality informed. The study included 156 healthy children. Mean age was 7.6 ± 5 years [1 month-16.8 years]. Conventional echocardiography variables were similar in both ultrasound systems. For both software brands, the tracking quality was excellent in the LV longitudinal and circumferential displacements, but more limited in the RV free wall longitudinal strain. Inter-ultrasound system correlation was poor for global longitudinal and circumferential LV strain (ICC of 0.34 [IC95% 0.06-0.57]) and 0.12 [IC95% - 0.18 to - 0.40], respectively). We observed poor inter-sonographer reliability for both global LV longitudinal strain and global LV circumferential strain with the two software systems. Inter-analyzer variability was good especially for the global LV circumferential strain using Philips software (ICC of 0.78 [IC95% 0.52-0.91]). In pediatrics, the Philips/GE inter-vendor level of variability in STE analysis is mainly due to inter ultrasound systems and inter sonographers' differences. These results need to be taken into account when using STE analysis in the follow-up of cardiac children. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02056925.

Keywords: 2D strain; Inter-vendor; Pediatric cardiology; Pediatrics; Variability.

References

    1. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2000 Sep;1(3):154-70
    1. Circulation. 2006 Feb 21;113(7):960-8
    1. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2007 Aug 30;5:27
    1. Am J Cardiol. 2008 Aug 1;102(3):335-9
    1. Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2008 Nov;21(11):1207-15
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2008 Dec;21(12):1309-17
    1. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Aug 11;54(7):618-24
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010 May;23(5):465-95; quiz 576-7
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010 Sep;23(9):919-28
    1. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Sep 28;56(14):1149-57
    1. J Ultrasound Med. 2011 Jan;30(1):71-83
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011 Jun;24(6):625-36
    1. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2012 May;13(3):259-64
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012 Mar;25(3):304-12
    1. J Cardiol. 2012 Aug;60(2):145-9
    1. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Mar;14(3):235-9
    1. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Mar;15(3):324-31
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 Jan;27(1):50-4
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 May;27(5):549-60, e3
    1. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Apr;16(4):380-8
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014 Dec;27(12):1344-51
    1. Echocardiography. 2015 May;32(5):787-96
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Feb;28(2):183-93
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jun;28(6):642-8.e7
    1. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 Apr;99(4):1342-7
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jun;28(6):630-41
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Aug;28(8):999-1008
    1. Can J Cardiol. 2015 Jun;31(6):760-6
    1. Pediatr Cardiol. 2015 Dec;36(8):1610-6
    1. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Oct;28(10):1149-56
    1. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2016 Feb;109(2):120-7
    1. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Feb;9(2):e003866
    1. Congenit Heart Dis. 2016 Mar-Apr;11(2):199-207
    1. Int J Cardiol. 2016 Aug 15;217:28-34
    1. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Jun 1;18(6):707-716
    1. J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
    1. Echo Res Pract. 2016 Sep;3(3):85-93
    1. Echocardiography. 2016 Dec;33(12):1903-1910
    1. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017 Feb 20;12(1):39
    1. JRSM Cardiovasc Dis. 2017 Jun 06;6:2048004017712862
    1. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2017 Oct;110(10):562-571
    1. Circulation. 2018 Jan 30;137(5):508-518
    1. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984 Oct;4(4):715-24

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren