Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Vendor differences in 2D-speckle tracking global longitudinal strain: an update on a 10-year standardization effort
Authors' conclusion
In this controlled study setting, GLS measurements from companies that provide contemporary semi-automated clinical software have become more consistent, compared with 10 years ago. Mid-/full-wall strain was now available in all but one software.
Study context
- Population
- Subjects with LV ejection fraction ranging from 30% to 68%, scanned on ultrasound systems from six manufacturerssubjects (50 male, age 56 ± 17), 372 echocardiographic exams
- Participants
- 62 subjects
- Comparison
- Endocardial and mid-/full-wall GLS were measured and compared with the mean GLS of contemporary semi-automated clinical software: GE, Philips, Canon, Fujifilm, and Caas Qardia.
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Inter-vendor bias of endocardial and mid-/full-wall GLS, contemporary semi-automated clinical software
Average maximum bias
0.6% strain units
Further findings
Average minimal detectable change, contemporary semi-automated clinical software
- Endocardial GLS
- 2.5
- Mid-/full-wall GLS
- 2.4
- These values were higher for and among some other vendors.
Test-retest variability, GLS vs LV ejection fraction
- GLS
- 6.6%
- LV ejection fraction
- 6.5%
- GLS vs LV ejection fraction
- P > 0.05
Original publication
Vendor differences in 2D-speckle tracking global longitudinal strain: an update on a 10-year standardization effort. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. Published 26 May 2025. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it