背景:通过特征追踪心脏MRI对正常心房变形测量结果的共识仍然不存在。
目的:提供正常人心房应变参数的参考范围,评估场强和分析软件对测量结果的影响。
方法:Meta分析。
方法:2708名受试者来自42项接受心脏MRI的研究。
结果:从数据库中进行了系统搜索(PubMed,WebofScience,ScienceDirect,和EMBASE)开始到2023年8月。随机效应模型用于汇集双心房应变参数的均值。评估异质性和临床变量效应。比较了不同场强和分析软件之间的应变测量值。
方法:方差逆方法,CochraneQ统计,和I2值,元回归分析,和方差分析;P<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
结果:左心房(LA)总应变(εs)的汇总平均值,被动应变(εe),活性应变(εa)为37.46%,22.73%,和16.24%,分别,和LA总应变率(SRs)的合并平均值,被动应变率(SRe),和活性应变率(SRa)分别为1.66,-1.95和-1.83,表明显着的异质性。右心房(RA)εs的合并均值,εe,εa为44.87%,26.05%,18.83%。RASR,SRe,和SRa分别为1.66、-1.95和-1.83。元回归确定年龄与LAεs显著相关,εe和SRe,场强与LASRa相关(均P<0.05)。方差分析揭示了不同分析软件之间LAεa和SRa的差异,以及场强之间LAεs和所有LA应变率的差异(均P<0.05)。在分析软件中,RA应变(RA应变:P=0.145-0.749;RA应变率:P=0.073-0.744)和场强(RA应变:P=0.641-0.794;RA应变率:P=0.204-0.458)没有显着差异。
结论:本研究显示了双心房应变的汇总参考值。年龄,分析软件,和场强归因于LA应变的差异,而RA应变在不同场强和分析软件之间显示出一致性。有限的研究对象可能是对RA菌株没有影响的原因。
方法:
■阶段5.
BACKGROUND: A consensus on normal atrial deformation measurements by feature-tracking cardiac MRI remained absent.
OBJECTIVE: Provide reference ranges for atrial strain parameters in normal subjects, evaluating the influence of field strength and analysis software on the measurements.
METHODS: Meta-analysis.
METHODS: 2708 subjects from 42 studies undergoing cardiac MRI.
RESULTS: A systematic search was conducted from database (PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE) inception through August 2023. The random-effects model was used to pool the means of biatrial strain parameters. Heterogeneity and clinical variable effects were assessed. Strain measurements among different field strengths and analysis software were compared.
METHODS: The inverse-variance method, Cochrane Q statistic, and I2 value, meta-regression analysis, and ANOVA were used; P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: The pooled means of left atrial (LA) total strain (εs), passive strain (εe), and active strain (εa) were 37.46%, 22.73%, and 16.24%, respectively, and the pooled means of LA total strain rate (SRs), passive strain rate (SRe), and active strain rate (SRa) were 1.66, -1.95, and -1.83, indicating significant heterogeneity. The pooled means of right atrial (RA) εs, εe, and εa were 44.87%, 26.05%, and 18.83%. RA SRs, SRe, and SRa were 1.66, -1.95, and -1.83, respectively. The meta-regression identified age as significantly associated with LA εs, εe and SRe, field strength was associated with LA SRa (all P < 0.05). ANOVA revealed differences in LA εa and SRa among different analysis software and in LA εs and all LA strain rates (all P < 0.05) among field strengths. No significant differences were identified in RA strain across analysis software (RA strain: P = 0.145-0.749; RA strain rates: P = 0.073-0.744) and field strengths (RA strain: P = 0.641-0.794; RA strain rates: P = 0.204-0.458).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the pooled reference values of biatrial strain. Age, analysis software, and field strength were attributed to differences in LA strain, whereas RA strain showed consistency across different field strengths and analysis software. Limited study subjects may account for the absence of influence on RA strain.
METHODS: UNASSIGNED: Stage 5.