| Literature DB >> 18495040 |
Alistair A Young1, Brett R Cowan, Stefan O Schoenberg, Bernd J Wintersperger.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A single breath-hold evaluation of ventricular function would allow assessment in cases where scan time or patient tolerance is limited. Spatiotemporal acceleration techniques such as TSENSE decrease cardiovascular MR acquisition time, but standard slice summation analysis requires enough short axis slices to cover the left ventricle (LV). By reducing the number of short axis slices, incorporating long axis slices, and applying a 3D model based analysis, it may be possible to obtain accurate LV mass and volumes. We evaluated LV volume, mass and ejection fraction at 3.0 T using a 3D modeling analysis in 9 patients with a history of myocardial infarction and one healthy volunteer. Acquisition consisted of a standard short axis SSFP stack and a 15 heart-beat single breath-hold six slice multi-planar (4 short and 2 long axis) TSENSE SSFP protocol with an acceleration factor of R = 4.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18495040 PMCID: PMC2413233 DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-10-24
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Figure 1Midventricular short axis images from the standard acquisition (upper) and TSENSE accelerated single breath-hold acquisition (lower), at end-diastole (left) and end-systole (right), from the same patient.
Figure 2Mathematical representation of the LV derived from guide-point modeling at end-diastole, shown with an intersecting four chamber long axis slice, for a) standard protocol and b) reduced slice TSENSE accelerated single breath-hold acquisition. The endocardial surface is shaded red and intersections of the epicardial surface with the image slices are shown as blue lines.
Functional parameters (mean ± s.d.) for each acquisition protocol (average of repeat analyses) and difference (standard minus accelerated protocol).
| (ml) | (ml) | (ml) | (%) | (g) | |
| 168 ± 34 | 77 ± 30 | 91 ± 26 | 55 ± 9 | 152 ± 34 | |
| 160 ± 48* | 76 ± 30 | 84 ± 27* | 53 ± 8* | 159 ± 40* | |
| 7.5 ± 9.6 | 0.4 ± 5.1 | 7.1 ± 8.1 | 2.2 ± 2.8 | -7.1 ± 6.2 |
EDV = end-diastolic volume, ESV = end-systolic volume, SV = stroke volume, EF = ejection fraction, LV mass = left ventricular mass. * p < 0.05 versus the standard protocol by ANOVA.
Figure 3Bland Altman plots for EDV, ESV, LV mass and EF. Plots show difference (standard minus accelerated protocol) vs average (of both protocols). Lines show mean difference and 2 sd of differences.
Intra-observer error for each acquisition protocol (mean ± s.d.).
| (ml) | (ml) | (ml) | (%) | (g) | |
| -2.4 ± 4.4 | -2.3 ± 4.5 | -0.1 ± 5.9 | 0.9 ± 2.2 | 6.9 ± 9.4 | |
| -1.2 ± 3.5 | -1.1 ± 3.9 | -0.1 ± 6.4 | 0.5 ± 3.6 | 4.9 ± 8.7 |
Inter-observer error for each acquisition protocol (mean ± s.d.).
| (ml) | (ml) | (ml) | (%) | (g) | |
| -1.0 ± 7.2 | -1.0 ± 5.5 | 0.0 ± 6.7 | 0.4 ± 3.2 | 3.9 ± 8.2 | |
| 3.3 ± 5.0 | 2.3 ± 4.8 | 1.0 ± 5.8 | -0.7 ± 3.5 | 3.8 ± 9.0 |