PURPOSE: To prospectively compare visualization and quantification of irreversible myocardial injury in patients with chronic myocardial infarction at 1.5- and 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional research ethics committee approved the study. Participants gave written informed consent. Sixteen male patients (mean age, 66 years +/- 13 [standard deviation]) with myocardial infarction were imaged with the same sequence by the same operator at 1.5 and 3.0 T. After cine imaging, a bolus of gadodiamide was administered. Short-axis images of entire left ventricle (LV) were acquired with a breath-hold T1-weighted segmented inversion-recovery turbo fast low-angle shot (FLASH) sequence. Agreement for myocardial hyperenhancement (HE) mass between field strengths was assessed with Bland-Altman method; agreement for detection and transmural extent of HE was assessed with kappa statistics. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of mass and transmural extent of HE were assessed at 1.5 and 3.0 T. RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis revealed no systematic bias (mean difference, 0.2 g; 95% confidence interval: -0.7 g, 1.2 g) and acceptable limits of agreement (-3.3 to 3.8 g) between field strengths for HE mass. HE mass measurements were strongly correlated (R(2) = 0.99); there was no significant difference in measurements at 1.5 and 3.0 T (28.1 g +/- 15.7 [22.6% +/- 10.9 of LV mass] vs 27.8 g +/- 15.7 [22.3% +/- 10.7 of LV mass], respectively; P = .599). For all segments, there was a high degree of agreement for HE detection (kappa = 0.90) and transmural grade (kappa = 0.79) between field strengths. Intra- and interobserver variability were low between both field strengths. Initial inversion time selected to null the signal of normal myocardium at 3.0 T was 57 msec +/- 20 longer than at 1.5 T (P < .01). CONCLUSION: By using the same turbo FLASH MR pulse sequence, there was strong agreement in mass and transmural extent of myocardial HE between 1.5 and 3.0 T. (c) RSNA, 2007.
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare visualization and quantification of irreversible myocardial injury in patients with chronic myocardial infarction at 1.5- and 3.0-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional research ethics committee approved the study. Participants gave written informed consent. Sixteen male patients (mean age, 66 years +/- 13 [standard deviation]) with myocardial infarction were imaged with the same sequence by the same operator at 1.5 and 3.0 T. After cine imaging, a bolus of gadodiamide was administered. Short-axis images of entire left ventricle (LV) were acquired with a breath-hold T1-weighted segmented inversion-recovery turbo fast low-angle shot (FLASH) sequence. Agreement for myocardial hyperenhancement (HE) mass between field strengths was assessed with Bland-Altman method; agreement for detection and transmural extent of HE was assessed with kappa statistics. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of mass and transmural extent of HE were assessed at 1.5 and 3.0 T. RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis revealed no systematic bias (mean difference, 0.2 g; 95% confidence interval: -0.7 g, 1.2 g) and acceptable limits of agreement (-3.3 to 3.8 g) between field strengths for HE mass. HE mass measurements were strongly correlated (R(2) = 0.99); there was no significant difference in measurements at 1.5 and 3.0 T (28.1 g +/- 15.7 [22.6% +/- 10.9 of LV mass] vs 27.8 g +/- 15.7 [22.3% +/- 10.7 of LV mass], respectively; P = .599). For all segments, there was a high degree of agreement for HE detection (kappa = 0.90) and transmural grade (kappa = 0.79) between field strengths. Intra- and interobserver variability were low between both field strengths. Initial inversion time selected to null the signal of normal myocardium at 3.0 T was 57 msec +/- 20 longer than at 1.5 T (P < .01). CONCLUSION: By using the same turbo FLASH MR pulse sequence, there was strong agreement in mass and transmural extent of myocardial HE between 1.5 and 3.0 T. (c) RSNA, 2007.
Authors: Dirk Lossnitzer; Henning Steen; Alexandra Zahn; Stephanie Lehrke; Celine Weiss; Karl Heinz Weiss; Evangelos Giannitsis; Wolfgang Stremmel; Peter Sauer; Hugo A Katus; Daniel N Gotthardt Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2010-08-13 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Iain T Pierce; Jennifer Keegan; Peter Drivas; Peter D Gatehouse; David N Firmin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-05-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Susie Parnham; Jonathan M Gleadle; Darryl Leong; Suchi Grover; Craig Bradbrook; Richard J Woodman; Carmine G De Pasquale; Joseph B Selvanayagam Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Theodoros D Karamitsos; Sairia Dass; Joseph Suttie; Emily Sever; Jacqueline Birks; Cameron J Holloway; Matthew D Robson; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Hugh Watkins; Stefan Neubauer Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Susie Parnham; Jonathan M Gleadle; Sripal Bangalore; Suchi Grover; Rebecca Perry; Richard J Woodman; Carmine G De Pasquale; Joseph B Selvanayagam Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 5.501