PURPOSE: To compare fast imaging with steady-state precession (FISP) and fast low-angle shot (FLASH) magnetic resonance acquisitions to quantify left ventricular volumes, mass, and function and to determine if the two techniques are comparable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Left ventricular volume studies were performed in 10 patients with heart failure and in 10 healthy subjects by using FISP and FLASH imaging. Identical section positions were used for section-by-section contour comparisons. Manual analysis was performed by two experienced observers. The study was repeated on a different day and interobserver and interstudy reproducibility assessed. RESULTS: With FISP, end-diastolic volume was larger (healthy subjects: +18 mL [13%], P <.001; patients: +6 mL [3%], not significant), end-systolic volume larger (healthy subjects: +9 mL [17%], P =.001; patients: +8 mL [6%], P =.001) and left ventricular mass smaller (healthy subjects: -25 g (19%), P <.001; patients: -21 g (11%), P <.001). There were no significant differences in ejection fraction. Both sequences had excellent interstudy and interobserver reproducibility, with statistically better reproducibility for interstudy healthy-subject ejection fraction on FISP images (P =.05). Section-by-section analysis determined that at FISP, endocardial contours were drawn larger and the epicardial contours smaller than on FLASH images. FISP enabled better delineation of epicardial fat from myocardium, of blood-myocardium interface in areas of trabeculation or papillary muscles, and of the atrioventricular ring. CONCLUSION: FISP produces small but significantly higher left ventricular volume measurements, as compared with FLASH imaging. FLASH imaging and FISP have similar reproducibility.
PURPOSE: To compare fast imaging with steady-state precession (FISP) and fast low-angle shot (FLASH) magnetic resonance acquisitions to quantify left ventricular volumes, mass, and function and to determine if the two techniques are comparable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Left ventricular volume studies were performed in 10 patients with heart failure and in 10 healthy subjects by using FISP and FLASH imaging. Identical section positions were used for section-by-section contour comparisons. Manual analysis was performed by two experienced observers. The study was repeated on a different day and interobserver and interstudy reproducibility assessed. RESULTS: With FISP, end-diastolic volume was larger (healthy subjects: +18 mL [13%], P <.001; patients: +6 mL [3%], not significant), end-systolic volume larger (healthy subjects: +9 mL [17%], P =.001; patients: +8 mL [6%], P =.001) and left ventricular mass smaller (healthy subjects: -25 g (19%), P <.001; patients: -21 g (11%), P <.001). There were no significant differences in ejection fraction. Both sequences had excellent interstudy and interobserver reproducibility, with statistically better reproducibility for interstudy healthy-subject ejection fraction on FISP images (P =.05). Section-by-section analysis determined that at FISP, endocardial contours were drawn larger and the epicardial contours smaller than on FLASH images. FISP enabled better delineation of epicardial fat from myocardium, of blood-myocardium interface in areas of trabeculation or papillary muscles, and of the atrioventricular ring. CONCLUSION: FISP produces small but significantly higher left ventricular volume measurements, as compared with FLASH imaging. FLASH imaging and FISP have similar reproducibility.
Authors: Bernd J Wintersperger; Spencer Sincleair; Val M Runge; Olaf Dietrich; Armin Huber; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-04-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Bernd J Wintersperger; Konstantin Nikolaou; Olaf Dietrich; Johannes Rieber; Matthias Nittka; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-05-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andreas H Mahnken; Ernst Klotz; Anja Hennemuth; Bettina Jung; Ralf Koos; Joachim E Wildberger; Rolf W Günther Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-08-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: B J Wintersperger; K Nikolaou; O Mühling; A Huber; O Dietrich; M Nittka; B Kiefer; M F Reiser; S O Schoenberg Journal: Radiologe Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; J Paul Finn; Scott D Flamm; Mark A Fogel; Matthias G Friedrich; Vincent B Ho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Christopher M Kramer; Warren J Manning; Manesh Patel; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur E Stillman; Richard D White; Pamela K Woodard Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kai Nassenstein; Holger Eberle; Stefan Maderwald; Christoph J Jensen; Christina Heilmaier; Thomas Schlosser; Oliver Bruder Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: W Gregory Hundley; David A Bluemke; J Paul Finn; Scott D Flamm; Mark A Fogel; Matthias G Friedrich; Vincent B Ho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Christopher M Kramer; Warren J Manning; Manesh Patel; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur E Stillman; Richard D White; Pamela K Woodard Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 24.094