A Comparison of Left- and Right-Sided Strain Software for the Assessment of Intraoperative Right Ventricular Function.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare intraoperative right ventricular (RV) strain measurements made with left ventricular (LV) strain software commonly found on the echocardiography machine (Philips QLAB chamber motion quantification, version 10.7, Philips, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), with offline analysis using the dedicated RV strain software (EchoInsight, version 2.2.6.2230, Epsilon Imaging, Ann Arbor, MI). DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized, observational study. SETTING: Single tertiary level, university-affiliated hospital. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 48 patients undergoing transesophageal echocardiography for cardiac or noncardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Two-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) images of the right ventricle were obtained. Intraoperative 2D images were analyzed in real time for RV free wall strain (FWS) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) using QLAB chamber motion quantification (CMQ) LV strain software on the echocardiography machine. Two dimensional images were then analyzed offline to determine the RV FWS and GLS using EchoInsight RV-specific strain software. Three-dimensional images were then analyzed offline to detemine the 3D RV ejection fraction (3D RV EF) using TomTec 4D RV function (Unterschleissheim, Germany). Spearman's correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were used to characterize the relationship between RV strain measurements. Both types of strain measurements were compared to a reference standard of 3D RV EF. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Intraoperative RV strain measurements using LV-specific strain software correlated with offline RV strain measurements using the RV-specific strain software (FWS rho = 0.85; GLS rho = 0.81). The bias and limits of agreement were 0.75% (- 6.66 to 8.17) for FWS and -4.53% (-11.55 to 2.50) for GLS. The sensitivity and specificity for RV dysfunction for the intraoperative LV-specific software were 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] 73-100) and 70% (95% CI 51-85), respectively, for RV FWS and 94% (95% CI 73-100) and 67% (95% CI 47-83), respectively, for RV GLS. The sensitivity and specificity for RV dysfunction for the offline RV-specific software were 89% (95% CI 65-99) and 73% (95% CI 54-88), respectively, for RV FWS and 94% (95% CI 73-100) and 30% (95% CI 15-49), respectively, for RV GLS. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative RV strain measurements using LV-specific strain software commonly available on the echocardiography machine (QLAB CMQ) correlate with offline RV strain measurements using RV-specific strain software (EchoInsight). The bias and limits of agreement for these left- and right-sided strain software suggest that these 2 measures of RV function cannot be used interchangeably. Both, however, were sensitive measures of RV dysfunction and therefore are likely clinically relevant.