Table 2.

Comparisons of peak strain assessed by different CMR techniques

	Tagging by HARP	DENSE	FT by Tomtec	FT By CIM	FT By Circle
Entire cohort (N = 87)
Ecc (%)	−13 ± 4	−13 ± 4	−16 ± 6	− 10 ± 3	−14 ± 4
Err (%)	32 ± 24	40 ± 28	47 ± 26	64 ± 33	23 ± 9
Ell (%)	−14 ± 4	−8 ± 3	−13 ± 5	−11 ± 3	−12 ± 4
Normal subjects (N = 10)
Ecc (%)	−15 ± 2	−17 ± 4	−20 ± 4	−12 ± 3	−17 ± 3
Err (%)	38 ± 20	47 ± 14	54 ± 20	76 ± 35	27 ± 6
Ell (%)	−16 ± 3	−11 ± 3	−14 ± 3	−13 ± 2	−14 ± 4

Abbreviation: Ecc circumferential strain, Err radial strain, Ell longitudinal strain