PURPOSE: To compare higher spatial resolution 3D late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (Cardiac MR) with 2D LGE in patients with prior myocardial infarction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients were studied using high spatial resolution 3D LGE (1.3 x 1.3 x 5.0 mm(3)) and conventional 2D LGE (2 x 2 x 8 mm(3)) scans. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured. Total infarct volume, peri-infarct volume measured in a limited slab, and papillary muscle scar volume were compared using Bland-Altman analysis. Image quality was graded. RESULTS: 3D LGE had higher scar SNR (P < 0.001), higher myocardial SNR (P = 0.001), higher papillary scar-blood CNR (P = 0.01), and greater sharpness (P = 0.01). The scar volumes agreed (14.5 +/- 8.2 for 2D, vs. 13.2 +/- 8.8 for 3D), with bias +/- 2 standard deviations (SDs) of 0.5 +/- 6.8 mL, P = 0.59 R = 0.91. The peri-infarct volumes correlated but less strongly than scar (P = 0.40, R = 0.77). For patients with more heterogeneous scar, larger peri-infarct volumes were measured by 3D (1.9 +/- 1.1 mL for 2D vs. 2.4 +/- 1.6 mL for 3D, P = 0.15, in the matched region). Papillary scar, present in 6/14 (42%) patients, was more confidently identified on 3D LGE. CONCLUSION: Higher spatial resolution 3D LGE provides sharper images and higher SNR, but less myocardial nulling. Scar volumes agree well, with peri-infarct volumes correlating less well. 3D LGE may be superior in visualization of papillary muscle scar. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To compare higher spatial resolution 3D late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (Cardiac MR) with 2D LGE in patients with prior myocardial infarction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients were studied using high spatial resolution 3D LGE (1.3 x 1.3 x 5.0 mm(3)) and conventional 2D LGE (2 x 2 x 8 mm(3)) scans. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured. Total infarct volume, peri-infarct volume measured in a limited slab, and papillary muscle scar volume were compared using Bland-Altman analysis. Image quality was graded. RESULTS: 3D LGE had higher scar SNR (P < 0.001), higher myocardial SNR (P = 0.001), higher papillary scar-blood CNR (P = 0.01), and greater sharpness (P = 0.01). The scar volumes agreed (14.5 +/- 8.2 for 2D, vs. 13.2 +/- 8.8 for 3D), with bias +/- 2 standard deviations (SDs) of 0.5 +/- 6.8 mL, P = 0.59 R = 0.91. The peri-infarct volumes correlated but less strongly than scar (P = 0.40, R = 0.77). For patients with more heterogeneous scar, larger peri-infarct volumes were measured by 3D (1.9 +/- 1.1 mL for 2D vs. 2.4 +/- 1.6 mL for 3D, P = 0.15, in the matched region). Papillary scar, present in 6/14 (42%) patients, was more confidently identified on 3D LGE. CONCLUSION: Higher spatial resolution 3D LGE provides sharper images and higher SNR, but less myocardial nulling. Scar volumes agree well, with peri-infarct volumes correlating less well. 3D LGE may be superior in visualization of papillary muscle scar. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Raymond Y Kwong; Anna K Chan; Kenneth A Brown; Carmen W Chan; H Glenn Reynolds; Sui Tsang; Roger B Davis Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Caitlin J Harrigan; Evan Appelbaum; Barry J Maron; Jacqueline L Buros; C Michael Gibson; John R Lesser; James E Udelson; Warren J Manning; Martin S Maron Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Thanh D Nguyen; Pascal Spincemaille; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Bernard Y Ho; Matthew D Cham; Martin R Prince; Yi Wang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Andrew T Yan; Adolphe J Shayne; Kenneth A Brown; Sandeep N Gupta; Carmen W Chan; Tuan M Luu; Marcelo F Di Carli; H Glenn Reynolds; William G Stevenson; Raymond Y Kwong Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-06-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David Bello; David S Fieno; Raymond J Kim; F Scott Pereles; Rod Passman; Gina Song; Alan H Kadish; Jeffrey J Goldberger Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-04-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: André Schmidt; Clerio F Azevedo; Alan Cheng; Sandeep N Gupta; David A Bluemke; Thomas K Foo; Gary Gerstenblith; Robert G Weiss; Eduardo Marbán; Gordon F Tomaselli; João A C Lima; Katherine C Wu Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Frank Bogun; Benoit Desjardins; Thomas Crawford; Eric Good; Krit Jongnarangsin; Hakan Oral; Aman Chugh; Frank Pelosi; Fred Morady Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Eric Good; Benoit Desjardins; Krit Jongnarangsin; Hakan Oral; Aman Chugh; Matthew Ebinger; Frank Pelosi; Fred Morady; Frank Bogun Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2008-09-03 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Mieke M P Driessen; Johannes M P J Breur; Ricardo P J Budde; Joep W M van Oorschot; Roland R J van Kimmenade; Gertjan Tj Sieswerda; Folkert J Meijboom; Tim Leiner Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2015-01-01
Authors: Mehdi H Moghari; Raymond H Chan; Susie N Hong; Jaime L Shaw; Lois A Goepfert; Kraig V Kissinger; Beth Goddu; Mark E Josephson; Warren J Manning; Reza Nezafat Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Adrienne E Campbell-Washburn; Mohammad A Tavallaei; Mihaela Pop; Elena K Grant; Henry Chubb; Kawal Rhode; Graham A Wright Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Colin B Compas; Emily Y Wong; Xiaojie Huang; Smita Sampath; Ben A Lin; Prasanta Pal; Xenophon Papademetris; Karl Thiele; Donald P Dione; Mitchel Stacy; Lawrence H Staib; Albert J Sinusas; Matthew O'Donnell; James S Duncan Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Sébastien Roujol; Tamer A Basha; Mehmet Akçakaya; Murilo Foppa; Raymond H Chan; Kraig V Kissinger; Beth Goddu; Sophie Berg; Warren J Manning; Reza Nezafat Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 4.668