PURPOSE: To investigate left atrial volumes and function and their variability in healthy volunteers using steady state free precession (SSFP) and fast low angle shot (FLASH) sequences at both 1.5 and 3 T using both the short-axis and biplane area-length methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers underwent CMR at both 1.5 and 3 Tesla. The biplane area-length method utilized volumes from the horizontal and vertical long axis images. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between left atrial short-axis volumes or function between 1.5 and 3 T assessed using either FLASH or SSFP sequences. The biplane area-length method underestimated maximal left atrial volume using FLASH by 12 mL at 3 T (18%) and by 10 mL (14%) at 1.5 T (p = 0.003 and p = 0.05 respectively). Variability was larger for left atrial measurements using the biplane area-length method. CONCLUSION: Field strength had no effect on left atrial volume and function assessment using either FLASH or SSFP. The use of the short-axis method for the acquisition of left atrial parameters is more reproducible than the biplane area-length for serial measurements.
PURPOSE: To investigate left atrial volumes and function and their variability in healthy volunteers using steady state free precession (SSFP) and fast low angle shot (FLASH) sequences at both 1.5 and 3 T using both the short-axis and biplane area-length methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers underwent CMR at both 1.5 and 3 Tesla. The biplane area-length method utilized volumes from the horizontal and vertical long axis images. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between left atrial short-axis volumes or function between 1.5 and 3 T assessed using either FLASH or SSFP sequences. The biplane area-length method underestimated maximal left atrial volume using FLASH by 12 mL at 3 T (18%) and by 10 mL (14%) at 1.5 T (p = 0.003 and p = 0.05 respectively). Variability was larger for left atrial measurements using the biplane area-length method. CONCLUSION: Field strength had no effect on left atrial volume and function assessment using either FLASH or SSFP. The use of the short-axis method for the acquisition of left atrial parameters is more reproducible than the biplane area-length for serial measurements.
Authors: Sachin Gupta; Susan A Matulevicius; Colby R Ayers; Jarett D Berry; Parag C Patel; David W Markham; Benjamin D Levine; Kelly M Chin; James A de Lemos; Ronald M Peshock; Mark H Drazner Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 29.983
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: 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
Authors: Ivan Ilic; Ivan Stankovic; Radosav Vidakovic; Vladimir Jovanovic; Alja Vlahovic Stipac; BiIjana Putnikovic; Aleksandar N Neskovic Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Laura Kristin Wandelt; Johannes Tammo Kowallick; Andreas Schuster; Rolf Wachter; Thomas Stümpfig; Christina Unterberg-Buchwald; Michael Steinmetz; Christian Oliver Ritter; Joachim Lotz; Wieland Staab Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Bruno Graça; Maria João Ferreira; Paulo Donato; Miguel Castelo-Branco; Filipe Caseiro-Alves Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-08-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: John N Oshinski; Jana G Delfino; Puneet Sharma; Ahmed M Gharib; Roderic I Pettigrew Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2010-10-07 Impact factor: 5.364