PURPOSE: To prospectively assess the performance of highly accelerated cine MRI in multi-orientations combined with a new guide-point modeling post-processing technique (GPM approach) for assessment of left ventricular (LV) function compared to the standard summation of slices method based on a stack of short axis views (SoS approach). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 33 consecutive patients were examined on a 1.5T scanner with a standard steady state free precession (SSFP) sequence (TR, 3.0 ms; TE, 1.5m; flip angle (FA), 60 degrees ; acceleration factor (AF), 2) analyzed with the SoS method and a highly accelerated, single breath-hold temporal parallel acquisition SSFP sequence (TR, 4.6 ms; TE, 1.1 ms; AF, 3) post-processed with the GPM method. LV function values were measured by two independent readers with different experience in cardiac MRI and compared by using the paired t-test and F-test. Inter- and intraobserver agreements were calculated using Bland-Altman-Plots. RESULTS: Mean acquisition and post-processing time was significantly shorter with the GPM approach (15s/3 min versus 360 s/6 min). For all LV function parameters interobserver agreement between the experienced and non-experienced reader was significantly improved when the GPM approach was used. However, end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were larger for the GPM technique when compared to the SoS method (P<0.001), whereas ejection fraction estimation yielded equivalent results (P>0.121). In both readers and for all parameters variances did not differ significantly (P>or=0.409) and the two approaches showed an excellent linear correlation (r>0.951). CONCLUSION: Due to its accurate, fast and reproducible assessment of LV function parameters highly accelerated MRI combined with the GPM technique may become the technique of first choice for assessment of LV function in clinical routine. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: To prospectively assess the performance of highly accelerated cine MRI in multi-orientations combined with a new guide-point modeling post-processing technique (GPM approach) for assessment of left ventricular (LV) function compared to the standard summation of slices method based on a stack of short axis views (SoS approach). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 33 consecutive patients were examined on a 1.5T scanner with a standard steady state free precession (SSFP) sequence (TR, 3.0 ms; TE, 1.5m; flip angle (FA), 60 degrees ; acceleration factor (AF), 2) analyzed with the SoS method and a highly accelerated, single breath-hold temporal parallel acquisition SSFP sequence (TR, 4.6 ms; TE, 1.1 ms; AF, 3) post-processed with the GPM method. LV function values were measured by two independent readers with different experience in cardiac MRI and compared by using the paired t-test and F-test. Inter- and intraobserver agreements were calculated using Bland-Altman-Plots. RESULTS: Mean acquisition and post-processing time was significantly shorter with the GPM approach (15s/3 min versus 360 s/6 min). For all LV function parameters interobserver agreement between the experienced and non-experienced reader was significantly improved when the GPM approach was used. However, end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were larger for the GPM technique when compared to the SoS method (P<0.001), whereas ejection fraction estimation yielded equivalent results (P>0.121). In both readers and for all parameters variances did not differ significantly (P>or=0.409) and the two approaches showed an excellent linear correlation (r>0.951). CONCLUSION: Due to its accurate, fast and reproducible assessment of LV function parameters highly accelerated MRI combined with the GPM technique may become the technique of first choice for assessment of LV function in clinical routine. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Kai Nassenstein; Holger Eberle; Stefan Maderwald; Christoph J Jensen; Christina Heilmaier; Thomas Schlosser; Oliver Bruder Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kai Nassenstein; Stephan Orzada; Lars Haering; Andreas Czylwik; Michael Zenge; Holger Eberle; Thomas Schlosser; Oliver Bruder; Edgar Müller; Mark E Ladd; Stefan Maderwald Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-09-24 Impact factor: 5.315