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
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 |