PURPOSE: Data are unavailable for rational selection of pulse sequences to assess postinfarction myocardial viability in rodents at high field strength. We implemented a widely used clinical inversion recovery (IR) sequence at 4.7T and compared the results to a heavily T1-weighted cine FLASH sequence (T1-CF) for assessment of infarction size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven infarcted rats were examined within 24 h of infarction after injection of Gadophrin-3 contrast agent. Images were acquired using both pulse sequences and a standard cine (SC) sequence. Estimates of infarct size were compared to TTC. Global LV function was compared between the T1-CF and SC sequences. RESULTS: SNR, relative SNR, and CNR for the infarcted and normal myocardium were significantly greater for the IR sequence. Infarction size was overestimated by both sequences, but correlated highly and showed very close agreement with TTC. Global function revealed no significant differences between T1-CF and SC. CONCLUSION: Both IR and T1-CF produced reliable results for assessment of infarction size at 4.7T. While the IR sequence delivers better overall SNR and CNR, the T1-CF allows concomitant assessment of global cardiac function with a much shorter acquisition time.
PURPOSE: Data are unavailable for rational selection of pulse sequences to assess postinfarction myocardial viability in rodents at high field strength. We implemented a widely used clinical inversion recovery (IR) sequence at 4.7T and compared the results to a heavily T1-weighted cine FLASH sequence (T1-CF) for assessment of infarction size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven infarctedrats were examined within 24 h of infarction after injection of Gadophrin-3 contrast agent. Images were acquired using both pulse sequences and a standard cine (SC) sequence. Estimates of infarct size were compared to TTC. Global LV function was compared between the T1-CF and SC sequences. RESULTS: SNR, relative SNR, and CNR for the infarcted and normal myocardium were significantly greater for the IR sequence. Infarction size was overestimated by both sequences, but correlated highly and showed very close agreement with TTC. Global function revealed no significant differences between T1-CF and SC. CONCLUSION: Both IR and T1-CF produced reliable results for assessment of infarction size at 4.7T. While the IR sequence delivers better overall SNR and CNR, the T1-CF allows concomitant assessment of global cardiac function with a much shorter acquisition time.
Authors: Maythem Saeed; Michael F Wendland; Gunnar Lund Jens Bremerich; Hanns-Joachim Weinmann; Charles B Higgins Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Frederick H Epstein; Zequan Yang; Wesley D Gilson; Stuart S Berr; Christopher M Kramer; Brent A French Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: O P Simonetti; R J Kim; D S Fieno; H B Hillenbrand; E Wu; J M Bundy; J P Finn; R M Judd Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Nahrendorf; F Wiesmann; K H Hiller; K Hu; C Waller; J Ruff; T E Lanz; S Neubauer; A Haase; G Ertl; W R Bauer Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: R J Kim; D S Fieno; T B Parrish; K Harris; E L Chen; O Simonetti; J Bundy; J P Finn; F J Klocke; R M Judd Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-11-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R J Kim; E Wu; A Rafael; E L Chen; M A Parker; O Simonetti; F J Klocke; R O Bonow; R M Judd Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Frank Grothues; Gillian C Smith; James C C Moon; Nicholas G Bellenger; Peter Collins; Helmut U Klein; Dudley J Pennell Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-07-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Hui Qiao; Hualei Zhang; Satoshi Yamanaka; Vickas V Patel; Nataliya B Petrenko; Bin Huang; Larry R Muenz; Victor A Ferrari; Kenneth R Boheler; Rong Zhou Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-11-08 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Alexis Jacquier; Matthew Bucknor; Loi Do; Philippe Robert; Claire Corot; Charles B Higgins; Maythem Saeed Journal: MAGMA Date: 2008-04-30 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Daniel Thomas; Harshali Bal; Jeffrey Arkles; James Horowitz; Luis Araujo; Paul D Acton; Victor A Ferrari Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hui Qiao; Hualei Zhang; Yuanjie Zheng; Datta E Ponde; Dinggang Shen; Fabao Gao; Ashley B Bakken; Alexander Schmitz; Hank F Kung; Victor A Ferrari; Rong Zhou Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anthony N Price; King K Cheung; Shiang Y Lim; Derek M Yellon; Derek J Hausenloy; Mark F Lythgoe Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2011-09-05 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Merry L Lindsey; Zamaneh Kassiri; Jitka A I Virag; Lisandra E de Castro Brás; Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Guido Buonincontri; Carmen Methner; T Adrian Carpenter; Robert C Hawkes; Stephen J Sawiak; Thomas Krieg Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 1.355