BACKGROUND: Routine clinical use of novel free-breathing, motion-corrected, averaged late-gadolinium-enhancement (moco-LGE) cardiovascular MR may have advantages over conventional breath-held LGE (bh-LGE), especially in vulnerable patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 390 consecutive patients, we collected bh-LGE and moco-LGE with identical image matrix parameters. In 41 patients, bh-LGE was abandoned because of image quality issues, including 10 with myocardial infarction. When both were acquired, myocardial infarction detection was similar (McNemar test, P=0.4) with high agreement (κ=0.95). With artifact-free bh-LGE images, pixelwise myocardial infarction measures correlated highly (R(2)=0.96) without bias. Moco-LGE was faster, and image quality and diagnostic confidence were higher on blinded review (P<0.001 for all). During a median of 1.2 years, 20 heart failure hospitalizations and 18 deaths occurred. For bh-LGE, but not moco-LGE, inferior image quality and bh-LGE nonacquisition were linked to patient vulnerability confirmed by adverse outcomes (log-rank P<0.001). Moco-LGE significantly stratified risk in the full cohort (log-rank P<0.001), but bh-LGE did not (log-rank P=0.056) because a significant number of vulnerable patients did not receive bh-LGE (because of arrhythmia or inability to hold breath). CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial infarction detection and quantification are similar between moco-LGE and bh-LGE when bh-LGE can be acquired well, but bh-LGE quality deteriorates with patient vulnerability. Acquisition time, image quality, diagnostic confidence, and the number of successfully scanned patients are superior with moco-LGE, which extends LGE-based risk stratification to include patients with vulnerability confirmed by outcomes. Moco-LGE may be suitable for routine clinical use.
BACKGROUND: Routine clinical use of novel free-breathing, motion-corrected, averaged late-gadolinium-enhancement (moco-LGE) cardiovascular MR may have advantages over conventional breath-held LGE (bh-LGE), especially in vulnerable patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 390 consecutive patients, we collected bh-LGE and moco-LGE with identical image matrix parameters. In 41 patients, bh-LGE was abandoned because of image quality issues, including 10 with myocardial infarction. When both were acquired, myocardial infarction detection was similar (McNemar test, P=0.4) with high agreement (κ=0.95). With artifact-free bh-LGE images, pixelwise myocardial infarction measures correlated highly (R(2)=0.96) without bias. Moco-LGE was faster, and image quality and diagnostic confidence were higher on blinded review (P<0.001 for all). During a median of 1.2 years, 20 heart failure hospitalizations and 18 deaths occurred. For bh-LGE, but not moco-LGE, inferior image quality and bh-LGE nonacquisition were linked to patient vulnerability confirmed by adverse outcomes (log-rank P<0.001). Moco-LGE significantly stratified risk in the full cohort (log-rank P<0.001), but bh-LGE did not (log-rank P=0.056) because a significant number of vulnerable patients did not receive bh-LGE (because of arrhythmia or inability to hold breath). CONCLUSIONS:Myocardial infarction detection and quantification are similar between moco-LGE and bh-LGE when bh-LGE can be acquired well, but bh-LGE quality deteriorates with patient vulnerability. Acquisition time, image quality, diagnostic confidence, and the number of successfully scanned patients are superior with moco-LGE, which extends LGE-based risk stratification to include patients with vulnerability confirmed by outcomes. Moco-LGE may be suitable for routine clinical use.
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: Burkhard Sievers; Michael D Elliott; Lynne M Hurwitz; Timothy S E Albert; Igor Klem; Wolfgang G Rehwald; Michele A Parker; Robert M Judd; Raymond J Kim Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-01-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Heiko Mahrholdt; Anja Wagner; Thomas A Holly; Michael D Elliott; Robert O Bonow; Raymond J Kim; Robert M Judd Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R J Kim; D S Fieno; T B Parrish; K Harris; E L Chen; O Simonetti; J Bundy; J P Finn; F J Klocke; R M Judd Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-11-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Li-Yueh Hsu; Alex Natanzon; Peter Kellman; Glenn A Hirsch; Anthony H Aletras; Andrew E Arai Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Peter Hunold; Thomas Schlosser; Florian M Vogt; Holger Eggebrecht; Axel Schmermund; Oliver Bruder; Walter O Schüler; Jörg Barkhausen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Timothy C Wong; Kayla Piehler; Kathy S Puntil; Diego Moguillansky; Christopher G Meier; Joan M Lacomis; Peter Kellman; Stephen C Cook; David S Schwartzman; Marc A Simon; Suresh R Mulukutla; Erik B Schelbert Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Jason M Elinoff; Richa Agarwal; Christopher F Barnett; Raymond L Benza; Michael J Cuttica; Ahmed M Gharib; Michael P Gray; Paul M Hassoun; Anna R Hemnes; Marc Humbert; Todd M Kolb; Tim Lahm; Jane A Leopold; Stephen C Mathai; Vallerie V McLaughlin; Ioana R Preston; Erika B Rosenzweig; Oksana A Shlobin; Virginia D Steen; Roham T Zamanian; Michael A Solomon Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-07-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Christoph Treutlein; Marco Wiesmüller; Matthias S May; Rafael Heiss; Tobias Hepp; Michael Uder; Wolfgang Wuest Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2019-08-22
Authors: Erik B Schelbert; Yaron Fridman; Timothy C Wong; Hussein Abu Daya; Kayla M Piehler; Ajay Kadakkal; Christopher A Miller; Martin Ugander; Maren Maanja; Peter Kellman; Dipan J Shah; Kaleab Z Abebe; Marc A Simon; Giovanni Quarta; Michele Senni; Javed Butler; Javier Diez; Margaret M Redfield; Mihai Gheorghiade Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Timothy C Wong; Kayla M Piehler; Karolina M Zareba; Kathie Lin; Ashley Phrampus; Agam Patel; James C Moon; Martin Ugander; Uma Valeti; Jonathan E Holtz; Bo Fu; Chung-Chou H Chang; Michael Mathier; Peter Kellman; Javed Butler; Mihai Gheorghiade; Erik B Schelbert Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 5.501