G Ligabue1, F Fiocchi, S Ferraresi, A Barbieri, R Rossi, M G Modena, R Romagnoli, P Torricelli. 1. Cattedra e Servizio di Radiologia 1, Dipartimento di Servizi Diagnostici e per Immagine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico di Modena, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Via del Pozzo 71, Modena, Italy. ligabue.guido@unimore.it
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared 3-Tesla (3-T) and 1.5-Tesla (1.5-T) cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the assessment of myocardial viability in nearly identical experimental conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients (mean age 63+/-11; 94.2% men) submitted to primary coronary angioplasty underwent both 3-T and 1.5-T cardiac MRI, which was considered the gold standard. Comparison was performed on the basis of the same viability imaging protocol, which included resting cine-MR [balanced fast-field echo (B-FFE) sequence] followed by contrast-enhanced MR to evaluate perfusion and delayed enhancement (DE). We then performed functional index measurements and visual estimation of kinesis, perfusion and DE referring to a 5-point scale. Image quality was assessed on the basis of signal to noise ratio (SNR) and contrast to noise ratio (CNR). RESULTS: We found nonsignificant differences between the two scanners (P=NS) in measuring the functional and viability parameters. Myocardial SNR was significantly higher with 3-T MRI compared with 1.5-T MRI (61.3% gain). Even though a loss of CNR was recorded in B-FFE and in first-pass perfusion sequences (12.4% and 23.7%, respectively), on DE images, we quantified the increase of SNR and CNR of infarction of 387.8% and 330%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found that 3-T MRI showed high concordance with 1.5-T MRI in the evaluation of functional and viability parameters and provided better evidence of damaged myocardium.
PURPOSE: We compared 3-Tesla (3-T) and 1.5-Tesla (1.5-T) cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the assessment of myocardial viability in nearly identical experimental conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients (mean age 63+/-11; 94.2% men) submitted to primary coronary angioplasty underwent both 3-T and 1.5-T cardiac MRI, which was considered the gold standard. Comparison was performed on the basis of the same viability imaging protocol, which included resting cine-MR [balanced fast-field echo (B-FFE) sequence] followed by contrast-enhanced MR to evaluate perfusion and delayed enhancement (DE). We then performed functional index measurements and visual estimation of kinesis, perfusion and DE referring to a 5-point scale. Image quality was assessed on the basis of signal to noise ratio (SNR) and contrast to noise ratio (CNR). RESULTS: We found nonsignificant differences between the two scanners (P=NS) in measuring the functional and viability parameters. Myocardial SNR was significantly higher with 3-T MRI compared with 1.5-T MRI (61.3% gain). Even though a loss of CNR was recorded in B-FFE and in first-pass perfusion sequences (12.4% and 23.7%, respectively), on DE images, we quantified the increase of SNR and CNR of infarction of 387.8% and 330%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found that 3-T MRI showed high concordance with 1.5-T MRI in the evaluation of functional and viability parameters and provided better evidence of damaged myocardium.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Pairoj Rerkpattanapipat; Wojciech Mazur; Kerry M Link; W Gregory Hundley Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.266
Authors: Kiaran P McGee; Josef P Debbins; Ed B Boskamp; LeRoy Blawat; Lisa Angelos; Kevin F King Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: N E Doherty; K C Seelos; J Suzuki; G R Caputo; M O'Sullivan; S M Sobol; P Cavero; K Chatterjee; W W Parmley; C B Higgins Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1992-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Theodorus A M Kaandorp; Jeroen J Bax; Joanne D Schuijf; Eric P Viergever; Ernst E van Der Wall; Albert de Roos; Hildo J Lamb Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: M Francone; I Carbone; L Agati; C Bucciarelli Ducci; M Mangia; I Iacucci; C Catalano; R Passariello Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-10-06 Impact factor: 3.469
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