Conventional approach to myocardial strain analysis relies on a software designed for the left ventricle (LV) which is complex and time-consuming and is not specific for right ventricular (RV) and left atrial (LA) assessment. This study compared this conventional manual approach to strain evaluation with a novel semi-automatic analysis of myocardial strain, which is also chamber-specific. Two experienced observers used the AutoStrain software and manual QLab analysis to measure the LV, RV and LA strains in 152 healthy volunteers. Fifty cases were randomly selected for timing evaluation. No significant differences in LV global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) were observed between the two methods (-21.0% ± 2.5% vs. -20.8% ± 2.4%, p = 0.230). Conversely, RV longitudinal free wall strain (RVFWS) and LA longitudinal strain during the reservoir phase (LASr) measured by the semi-automatic software differed from the manual analysis (RVFWS: -26.4% ± 4.8% vs. -31.3% ± 5.8%, p < 0.001; LAS: 48.0% ± 10.0% vs. 37.6% ± 9.9%, p < 0.001). Bland–Altman analysis showed a mean error of 0.1%, 4.9%, and 10.5% for LVGLS, RVFWS, and LASr, respectively, with limits of agreement of -2.9,2.6%, -8.1,17.9%, and -12.3,33.3%, respectively. The semi-automatic method had a significantly shorter strain analysis time compared with the manual method. The novel semi-automatic strain analysis has the potential to improve efficiency in measurement of longitudinal myocardial strain. It shows good agreement with manual analysis for LV strain measurement.

中文翻译：

---

半自动纵向应变分析的可行性和再现性：与传统手动应变分析的比较研究

心肌应变分析的传统方法依赖于为左心室 (LV) 设计的软件，该软件复杂且耗时，并且并非专门用于右心室 (RV) 和左心房 (LA) 评估。这项研究将这种传统的手动应变评估方法与一种新颖的半自动心肌应变分析方法进行了比较，后者也是特定于室的。两名经验丰富的观察者使用 AutoStrain 软件和手动 QLab 分析来测量 152 名健康志愿者的 LV、RV 和 LA 菌株。随机选择50例进行时序评估。两种方法之间未观察到 LV 整体纵向应变 (LVGLS) 存在显着差异（-21.0% ± 2.5% 与 -20.8% ± 2.4%，p = 0.230）。相反，半自动软件测量的 RV 纵向游离壁应变 (RVFWS) 和 LA 蓄积期纵向应变 (LASr) 与手动分析不同 (RVFWS：-26.4% ± 4.8% 与 -31.3% ± 5.8% ，p < 0.001；LAS：48.0% ± 10.0% 对比 37.6% ± 9.9%，p < 0.001）。Bland-Altman 分析显示，LVGLS、RVFWS 和 LASr 的平均误差分别为 0.1%、4.9% 和 10.5%，一致性限为 -2.9、2.6%、-8.1、17.9% 和 -12.3、33.3 ％， 分别。与手动方法相比，半自动方法的应变分析时间明显缩短。新颖的半自动应变分析有可能提高纵向心肌应变的测量效率。它与 LV 应变测量的手动分析显示出良好的一致性。