PURPOSE: To assess a late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) single-breath-hold three-dimensional (3D) inversion recovery magnetic resonance (MR) imaging sequence for the quantification of myocardial scar mass and transmurality in comparison with a clinically established two-dimensional (2D) sequence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients gave written informed consent to participate in this institutional review board-approved study. Ninety patients (84 men; mean age, 54.4 years ± 10.8 [standard deviation]) with acute (n = 30), subacute (n = 30), or chronic (n = 30) myocardial infarction were included. Imaging was performed by using a 1.5-T clinical MR imaging system. Spatial resolution was identical for 3D and 2D images (1.5 × 1.5 mm(2); section thickness, 8 mm; no section gap). Quantitative comparisons of myocardial mass (in grams), scar mass (in grams), and scar transmurality (on a five-point scale) were performed by using the Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis (for myocardial and scar mass) or κ statistics (for transmurality). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between 2D and 3D data sets in terms of mean myocardial mass (2D: 148.3 g ± 35.1; 3D: 148.1 g ± 34.6; P = .76) and scar tissue mass (2D: 31.8 g ± 14.6; 3D: 31.6 g ± 15.5; P = .39), with strong and significant correlation regarding both myocardial mass (r = 0.982; P < .001) and scar tissue mass (r = 0.980; P < .001). Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 0.21 g ± 6.64 (range, -19.64 to 18.44 g) for myocardial mass and a mean difference of 0.26 g ± 2.88 (range, -7.15 to 7.74 g) for scar mass between the 2D and 3D data sets. Agreement regarding scar transmurality was good (κ = 0.75). Acquisition time was significantly shorter for 3D data sets (26.7 seconds ± 4.4 vs 367.7 seconds ± 56.4; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional LGE MR imaging enables quantitative evaluation of scar tissue mass and transmurality in patients with acute, subacute, or chronic myocardial infarction at significantly reduced acquisition times compared with 2D LGE MR imaging. RSNA, 2011
PURPOSE: To assess a late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) single-breath-hold three-dimensional (3D) inversion recovery magnetic resonance (MR) imaging sequence for the quantification of myocardial scar mass and transmurality in comparison with a clinically established two-dimensional (2D) sequence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients gave written informed consent to participate in this institutional review board-approved study. Ninety patients (84 men; mean age, 54.4 years ± 10.8 [standard deviation]) with acute (n = 30), subacute (n = 30), or chronic (n = 30) myocardial infarction were included. Imaging was performed by using a 1.5-T clinical MR imaging system. Spatial resolution was identical for 3D and 2D images (1.5 × 1.5 mm(2); section thickness, 8 mm; no section gap). Quantitative comparisons of myocardial mass (in grams), scar mass (in grams), and scar transmurality (on a five-point scale) were performed by using the Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis (for myocardial and scar mass) or κ statistics (for transmurality). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between 2D and 3D data sets in terms of mean myocardial mass (2D: 148.3 g ± 35.1; 3D: 148.1 g ± 34.6; P = .76) and scar tissue mass (2D: 31.8 g ± 14.6; 3D: 31.6 g ± 15.5; P = .39), with strong and significant correlation regarding both myocardial mass (r = 0.982; P < .001) and scar tissue mass (r = 0.980; P < .001). Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 0.21 g ± 6.64 (range, -19.64 to 18.44 g) for myocardial mass and a mean difference of 0.26 g ± 2.88 (range, -7.15 to 7.74 g) for scar mass between the 2D and 3D data sets. Agreement regarding scar transmurality was good (κ = 0.75). Acquisition time was significantly shorter for 3D data sets (26.7 seconds ± 4.4 vs 367.7 seconds ± 56.4; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional LGE MR imaging enables quantitative evaluation of scar tissue mass and transmurality in patients with acute, subacute, or chronic myocardial infarction at significantly reduced acquisition times compared with 2D LGE MR imaging. RSNA, 2011
Authors: Martin Rajchl; John Stirrat; Maged Goubran; Jeff Yu; David Scholl; Terry M Peters; James A White Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-10-12 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Anthony A Holmes; Jorge Romero; Jeffrey M Levsky; Linda B Haramati; Newton Phuong; Leila Rezai-Gharai; Stuart Cohen; Lina Restrepo; Luis Ruiz-Guerrero; John D Fisher; Cynthia C Taub; Luigi Di Biase; Mario J Garcia Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Jochen von Spiczak; Manoj Mannil; Hanna Model; Chris Schwemmer; Sebastian Kozerke; Frank Ruschitzka; Hatem Alkadhi; Robert Manka Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2020-04-16
Authors: Eranga Ukwatta; Hermenegild Arevalo; Martin Rajchl; James White; Farhad Pashakhanloo; Adityo Prakosa; Daniel A Herzka; Elliot McVeigh; Albert C Lardo; Natalia A Trayanova; Fijoy Vadakkumpadan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.071
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
Authors: Robert Manka; Sebastian Kozerke; Andrea K Rutz; Christian T Stoeck; Peter Boesiger; Juerg Schwitter Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2012-07-17 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Heerajnarain Bulluck; Georg M Fröhlich; Shah Mohdnazri; Reto A Gamma; John R Davies; Gerald J Clesham; Jeremy W Sayer; Rajesh K Aggarwal; Kare H Tang; Paul A Kelly; Rohan Jagathesan; Alamgir Kabir; Nicholas M Robinson; Alex Sirker; Anthony Mathur; Daniel J Blackman; Cono Ariti; Arvindra Krishnamurthy; Steven K White; Pascal Meier; James C Moon; John P Greenwood; Derek J Hausenloy Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 2.882