Skip to main content

Table 3 Differences in the normal ranges for 2D FT-CMR for Global circumferential, longitudinal and radial peak strains for the LV between different software manufacturers

From: The potential role of feature tracking in adult congenital heart disease: advantages and disadvantages in measuring myocardial deformation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Reference Vendor software Controls (n) Age (years) 2D
GCS GLS GRS
Andre et al. 2015 [39] TomTec 150 45.8 ± 14 − 21.3 ± 3.3 −21.6 ± 3.2 36.3 ± 8.7
Augustine et al. 2013 [40] TomTec 145 29.7 ± 7.6 −21 ± 3 − 19 ± 3 25 ± 6
Liu et al. 2017 [13] CircleCVi42 100 45 ± 14.3 − 20.9 ± 3.7 − 19.8 ± 2.9 47.6 ± 15.4
Taylor et al. 2015 [41] TomTec 100 44.5 ± 14 −18. ± 2.9 − 19.1 ± 4.1 39.8 ± 8.3
Heiberg et al. 2015 [35] TomTec 28 21.3 ± 2.5 − 24.7 ± 3.1 − 18 ± 2.85 64.5 ± 9.89
Kempny et al. 2012 [27] TomTec 25 33.1 ± 15.7 −23.5 ± 6.0 −21.3 ± 3.3 28.0 ± 11.3
Padiyath et al. 2013 [36] TomTec 20 37 ± 8.5 − 24.6 ± 2.5 − 19.9 ± 5.1 50.9 ± 12.4
Morton et al. 2012 [38] TomTec 16 27.9 ± 5.7 −17.6 ± 5.0 −21.0 ± 5.1 22.6 ± 7.9
  1. 2D two dimensional, GCS global circumferential strain, GLS Global longitudinal strain, GRS global radial strain