Comparison of septal strain patterns in XXXX between speckle tracking echocardiography vendor systems.

@entity1 @entity712 @entity9009 @entity6475 @entity299
AIM: To analyze inter-vendor differences of speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) in imaging @entity299 in @entity1 with @entity712 . METHODS AND RESULTS: Eleven @entity1 (all with LBBB, median age 60.7years, 9 males) with implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy devices were prospectively included. Ultrasound systems of two vendors (i.e. General Electric and Philips) were used to record images in the apical four chamber view. Regional longitudinal strain patterns were analyzed with vendor specific software in the basal, mid and apical septal segments. @entity299 ( @entity299 ), @entity6475 ( @entity6475 ) and @entity9009 ( @entity9009 ) were determined during four pacing settings, resulting in 44 unique strain patterns per segment (total 132 patterns). Cross correlation was used to analyze the comparability of the shape of 132 normalized strain patterns. Correlation of strain patterns of the two systems was high (R(2) median: 0.68, interquartile range: 0.53-0.82). Accordingly, strain patterns of intrinsic rhythm were recognized equally using both systems, when divided into three types. GE based @entity299 (18.9  4.7%) was significantly higher than @entity299 determined by the Philips system (13.4  4.3%). @entity6475 was slightly but non-significantly lower in GE (384  77ms) compared to Philips (404  83ms) derived strain signals. Correlation of @entity9009 between the systems was poor, due to minor differences in the strain signal and timing of aortic valve closure. CONCLUSIONS: The two systems provide similar shape of strain patterns. However, important differences are found in the amplitude, timing of systole and @entity9009 . Until STE is standardized, clinical decision making should be restricted to pattern analysis.
