Literature DB >> 20013275

Comparison of left ventricular function assessment using phonocardiogram- and electrocardiogram-triggered 2D SSFP CINE MR imaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T.

Meike Becker1, Tobias Frauenrath, Fabian Hezel, Gabriele A Krombach, Ute Kremer, Benedikt Koppers, Christoph Butenweg, Andreas Goemmel, Jane F Utting, Jeanette Schulz-Menger, Thoralf Niendorf.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: As high-field cardiac MRI (CMR) becomes more widespread the propensity of ECG to interference from electromagnetic fields (EMF) and to magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) effects increases and with it the motivation for a CMR triggering alternative. This study explores the suitability of acoustic cardiac triggering (ACT) for left ventricular (LV) function assessment in healthy subjects (n = 14).
METHODS: Quantitative analysis of 2D CINE steady-state free precession (SSFP) images was conducted to compare ACT's performance with vector ECG (VCG). Endocardial border sharpness (EBS) was examined paralleled by quantitative LV function assessment.
RESULTS: Unlike VCG, ACT provided signal traces free of interference from EMF or MHD effects. In the case of correct R-wave recognition, VCG-triggered 2D CINE SSFP was immune to cardiac motion effects-even at 3.0 T. However, VCG-triggered 2D SSFP CINE imaging was prone to cardiac motion and EBS degradation if R-wave misregistration occurred. ACT-triggered acquisitions yielded LV parameters (end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), ejection fraction (EF) and left ventricular mass (LVM)) comparable with those derived from VCG-triggered acquisitions (1.5 T: ESV(VCG) = (56 +/- 17) ml, EDV(VCG) = (151 +/- 32) ml, LVM(VCG) = (97 +/- 27) g, SV(VCG) = (94 +/- 19) ml, EF(VCG) = (63 +/- 5)% cf. ESV(ACT) = (56 +/- 18) ml, EDV(ACT) = (147 +/- 36) ml, LVM(ACT) = (102 +/- 29) g, SV(ACT) = (91 +/- 22) ml, EF(ACT) = (62 +/- 6)%; 3.0 T: ESV(VCG) = (55 +/- 21) ml, EDV(VCG) = (151 +/- 32) ml, LVM(VCG) = (101 +/- 27) g, SV(VCG) = (96 +/- 15) ml, EF(VCG) = (65 +/- 7)% cf. ESV(ACT) = (54 +/- 20) ml, EDV(ACT) = (146 +/- 35) ml, LVM(ACT) = (101 +/- 30) g, SV(ACT) = (92 +/- 17) ml, EF(ACT) = (64 +/- 6)%).
CONCLUSIONS: ACT's intrinsic insensitivity to interference from electromagnetic fields renders it suitable for clinical CMR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20013275     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1676-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  26 in total

1.  Influence of high magnetic field strengths and parallel acquisition strategies on image quality in cardiac 2D CINE magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of 1.5 T vs. 3.0 T.

Authors:  Matthias Gutberlet; Kerstin Schwinge; Patrick Freyhardt; Birgit Spors; Matthias Grothoff; Timm Denecke; Lutz Lüdemann; Ralph Noeske; Thoralf Niendorf; Roland Felix
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-05-05       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Phonocardiogram signal analysis: a review.

Authors:  R M Rangayyan; R J Lehner
Journal:  Crit Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  1987

3.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  Coronary magnetic resonance imaging: visualization of the vessel lumen and the vessel wall and molecular imaging of arteriothrombosis.

Authors:  Elmar Spuentrup; Rene M Botnar
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-08-25       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  ECG-synchronized cardiac MR imaging: method and evaluation.

Authors:  P Lanzer; C Barta; E H Botvinick; H U Wiesendanger; G Modin; C B Higgins
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Performance of QRS detection for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with a novel vectorcardiographic triggering method.

Authors:  J M Chia; S E Fischer; S A Wickline; C H Lorenz
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Hazardous situation in the MR bore: induction in ECG leads causes fire.

Authors:  Harald Kugel; Christoph Bremer; Marco Püschel; Roman Fischbach; Horst Lenzen; Bernd Tombach; Hugo Van Aken; Walter Heindel
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-02-19       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Whole-body imaging at 7T: preliminary results.

Authors:  J Thomas Vaughan; Carl J Snyder; Lance J DelaBarre; Patrick J Bolan; Jinfeng Tian; Lizann Bolinger; Gregor Adriany; Peter Andersen; John Strupp; Kamil Ugurbil
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.668

9.  Comparison of self-gated cine MRI retrospective cardiac synchronization algorithms.

Authors:  Grace M Nijm; Alan V Sahakian; Steven Swiryn; James C Carr; John J Sheehan; Andrew C Larson
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  Preliminary report on in vivo coronary MRA at 3 Tesla in humans.

Authors:  Matthias Stuber; René M Botnar; Stefan E Fischer; Rolf Lamerichs; Jouke Smink; Paul Harvey; Warren J Manning
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 4.668

View more
  19 in total

1.  Comparison of three multichannel transmit/receive radiofrequency coil configurations for anatomic and functional cardiac MRI at 7.0T: implications for clinical imaging.

Authors:  Lukas Winter; Peter Kellman; Wolfgang Renz; Andreas Gräßl; Fabian Hezel; Christof Thalhammer; Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff; Valeriy Tkachenko; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Thoralf Niendorf
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Cardiac magnetic resonance: is phonocardiogram gating reliable in velocity-encoded phase contrast imaging?

Authors:  Kai Nassenstein; Stephan Orzada; Lars Haering; Andreas Czylwik; Christoph Jensen; Thomas Schlosser; Oliver Bruder; Mark E Ladd; Stefan Maderwald
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Cardiac chamber quantification using magnetic resonance imaging at 7 Tesla--a pilot study.

Authors:  Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff; Tobias Frauenrath; Marcel Prothmann; Matthias A Dieringer; Fabian Hezel; Wolfgang Renz; Kerstin Kretschel; Thoralf Niendorf; Jeanette Schulz-Menger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-07-17       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Toward cardiovascular MRI at 7 T: clinical needs, technical solutions and research promises.

Authors:  Thoralf Niendorf; Daniel K Sodickson; Gabriele A Krombach; Jeanette Schulz-Menger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-07-31       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  [Problems and chances of high field magnetic resonance imaging].

Authors:  M E Ladd; M Bock
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  [Cardiovascular ultrahigh field magnetic resonance imaging : challenges, technical solutions and opportunities].

Authors:  T Niendorf; J Schulz-Menger
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  Cardiac MRI: evaluation of phonocardiogram-gated cine imaging for the assessment of global und regional left ventricular function in clinical routine.

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

Review 8.  Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and its electrocardiographs (ECG): tips and tricks.

Authors:  Marcelo Souto Nacif; Anna Zavodni; Nadine Kawel; Eui-Young Choi; João A C Lima; David A Bluemke
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 2.357

9.  Self-gated fat-suppressed cardiac cine MRI.

Authors:  R Reeve Ingle; Juan M Santos; William R Overall; Michael V McConnell; Bob S Hu; Dwight G Nishimura
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 4.668

10.  Acoustic cardiac triggering: a practical solution for synchronization and gating of cardiovascular magnetic resonance at 7 Tesla.

Authors:  Tobias Frauenrath; Fabian Hezel; Wolfgang Renz; Thibaut de Geyer d'Orth; Matthias Dieringer; Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff; Marcel Prothmann; Jeanette Schulz Menger; Thoralf Niendorf
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 5.364

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.