By Topic

Elastic Image Registration Versus Speckle Tracking for 2-D Myocardial Motion Estimation: A Direct Comparison In Vivo

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

9 Author(s)
Heyde, B. ; Lab. on Cardiovascular Imaging & Dynamics, Univ. of Leuven (KU Leuven), Leuven, Belgium ; Jasaityte, R. ; Barbosa, D. ; Robesyn, V.
more authors

Despite the availability of multiple solutions for assessing myocardial strain by ultrasound, little is currently known about the relative performance of the different methods. In this study, we sought to contrast two strain estimation techniques directly (speckle tracking and elastic registration) in an in vivo setting by comparing both to a gold standard reference measurement. In five open-chest sheep instrumented with ultrasonic microcrystals, 2-D images were acquired with a GE Vivid7 ultrasound system. Radial (εRR), longitudinal (εLL), and circumferential strain (εCC) were estimated during four inotropic stages: at rest, during esmolol and dobutamine infusion, and during acute ischemia. The correlation of the end-systolic strain values of a well-validated speckle tracking approach and an elastic registration method against sonomicrometry were comparable for εLL (r=0.70 versus r=0.61 , respectively; p=0.32) and εCC (r=0.73 versus r=0.80 respectively; p=0.31). However, the elastic registration method performed considerably better for εRR (r=0.64 versus r=0.85 respectively; p=0.09). Moreover, the bias and limits of agreement with respect to the reference strain estimates were statistically significantly smaller in this direction (p <; 0.001). This could be related to regularization which is imposed during the motion estimation process as opposed to an a posteriori regularization step in the speckle tracking method. Whether one method outperforms the other in detecting dysfunctional regions remains the topic of future research.

Published in:

Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:32 ,  Issue: 2 )