PURPOSE: To develop and validate a three-dimensional (3D) single breath-hold, projection reconstruction (PR), balanced steady state free precession (SSFP) method for cardiac function evaluation against a two-dimensional (2D) multislice Fourier (Cartesian) transform (FT) SSFP method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 3D PR SSFP sequence used projections in the x-y plane and partitions in z, providing 70-80 msec temporal resolution and 1.7 x 1.7 x 8-10 mm in a 24-heartbeat breath hold. A total of 10 volunteers were imaged with both methods, and the measurements of global cardiac function were compared. RESULTS: Mean signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) for the blood and myocardium were 114 and 42 (2D) and 59 and 21 (3D). Bland-Altman analysis comparing the 2D and 3D ejection fraction (EF), left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV) and end systolic volume (LVESV), and end diastolic myocardial mass (LVEDM) provided values of bias +/-2 SD of 0.6% +/- 7.7 % for LVEF, 5.9 mL +/- 20 mL for LVEDV, -2.8 mL +/- 12 mL for LVESV, and -0.61 g +/- 13 g for LVEDM. 3D interobserver variability was greater than 2D for LVEDM and LVESV. CONCLUSION: In a single breath hold, the 3D PR method provides comparable information to the standard 2D FT method, which employs 10-12 breath holds. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To develop and validate a three-dimensional (3D) single breath-hold, projection reconstruction (PR), balanced steady state free precession (SSFP) method for cardiac function evaluation against a two-dimensional (2D) multislice Fourier (Cartesian) transform (FT) SSFP method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 3D PR SSFP sequence used projections in the x-y plane and partitions in z, providing 70-80 msec temporal resolution and 1.7 x 1.7 x 8-10 mm in a 24-heartbeat breath hold. A total of 10 volunteers were imaged with both methods, and the measurements of global cardiac function were compared. RESULTS: Mean signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) for the blood and myocardium were 114 and 42 (2D) and 59 and 21 (3D). Bland-Altman analysis comparing the 2D and 3D ejection fraction (EF), left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV) and end systolic volume (LVESV), and end diastolic myocardial mass (LVEDM) provided values of bias +/-2 SD of 0.6% +/- 7.7 % for LVEF, 5.9 mL +/- 20 mL for LVEDV, -2.8 mL +/- 12 mL for LVESV, and -0.61 g +/- 13 g for LVEDM. 3D interobserver variability was greater than 2D for LVEDM and LVESV. CONCLUSION: In a single breath hold, the 3D PR method provides comparable information to the standard 2D FT method, which employs 10-12 breath holds. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Dana C Peters; Michael A Guttman; Alexander J Dick; Venkatesh K Raman; Robert J Lederman; Elliot R McVeigh Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jing Liu; Pascal Spincemaille; Noel C F Codella; Thanh D Nguyen; Martin R Prince; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Christoph Forman; Davide Piccini; Robert Grimm; Jana Hutter; Joachim Hornegger; Michael O Zenge Journal: MAGMA Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Elizabeth Bucholz; Ketan Ghaghada; Yi Qi; Srinivasan Mukundan; Howard A Rockman; G Allan Johnson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.668