| Literature DB >> 24947763 |
John D Groarke1, Alfonso H Waller, Tomas S Vita, Gregory F Michaud, Marcelo F Di Carli, Ron Blankstein, Raymond Y Kwong, Michael Steigner.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the feasibility of 3 dimensional (3D) respiratory and ECG gated, gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) on a 3 Tesla (3 T) scanner for imaging pulmonary veins (PV) and left atrium (LA). The impact of heart rate (HR) and rhythm irregularity associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) on image and segmentation qualities were also assessed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24947763 PMCID: PMC4078012 DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-16-43
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Figure 1Anatomical relationship of the pulmonary veins to the esophagus. A- Axial slice from a 3D respiratory- and ECG-gated gadolinium-enhanced MRA demonstrating that the esophagus (labeled *) can be difficult to identify on this sequence. B- Axial T1- weighted, fat-saturated 3D-gradient echo sequence from the same patient at a similar level clearly demonstrating the esophagus and its anatomical relations. [Key: AV = azygos vein, Ao = descending thoracic aorta, * = esophagus].
Figure 2Qualitative analysis of image quality. A- Image quality grade 1: pulmonary veins not visualized; B- Grade 2: pulmonary veins poorly defined with significant blurring of vessels; C- Grade 3: pulmonary veins well defined with mild blurring of vessels; D- Grade 4: excellent pulmonary vein definition without blurring.
Figure 3Image segmentation scoring: A- Grade 1: poor segmentation due to inability to separate LA and PVs from adjacent structures; B- Grade 2: moderate segmentation with incomplete separation of LA and PVs from adjacent structures; C- Grade 3: good segmentation with near complete separation of LA and PVs; D- excellent segmentation with complete separation of LA and PV.
Baseline characteristics presented by entire cohort and by AF status
| 101 | 66 | 35 | - | |
| 73 (72.3%) | 48 (65.8%) | 18 (64.3%) | 1.00* | |
| 58.9 ± 10.9 | 58.8 ± 11.1 | 59.1 ± 10.6 | 0.89 | |
| 2.07 ± 0.23 | 2.04 ± 0.22 | 2.11 ± 0.26 | 0.16 | |
| 39 (38.6%) | 25 (37.9%) | 14 (40.0%) | 0.83* | |
| 46 (45.5%) | 26 (39.4%) | 20 (57.1%) | 0.10* | |
| 5 (5.0%) | 2 (3.0%) | 3 (8.6%) | 0.34* | |
| 39 (38.6%) | 29 (43.9%) | 10 (28.6%) | 0.14* | |
| 69 ± 17 | 61 ± 9 | 84 ± 20 | <0.0001 | |
| 37-121 | 37-76 | 44-121 | ||
| 129 ± 16 | 132 ± 16 | 124 ± 15 | 0.02 | |
| 73 ± 11 | 73 ± 10 | 74 ± 13 | 0.45 | |
| 56.4 ± 11.1 | 59.5 ± 9.4 | 49.7 ± 11.6 | <0.0001 | |
| 76.7 ± 15.4 | 78.1 ± 15.9 | 72.7 ± 13.7 | 0.16 | |
| 33.5 ± 13.5 | 32.3 ± 13.7 | 37.0 ± 12.6 | 0.17 | |
| 3.9 ± 0.9 | 3.7 ± 0.7 | 4.4 ± 0.9 | 0.0001 |
*Fisher’s exact test.
[Key: SBP- systolic blood pressure; DBP- diastolic blood pressure; LVEF- left ventricular ejection fraction; LVEDVI- left ventricular end-diastolic volume indexed to body surface area; LVESVI- left ventricular end-systolic volume indexed to body surface area; LA- left atrium].
Quantitative and qualitative CMR measures presented for entire patient cohort and by AF status
| 101 | 66 | 35 | - | |
| 7:51 ± 2:58 | 8:14 ± 3:10 | 7:08 ± 2:25 | 0.08 | |
| 54.4 ± 11.8% | 53.8 ± 12.3% | 55.5 ± 10.8% | 0.50 | |
| 29.8 ± 8.5 | 29.0 ± 7.8 | 31.4 ± 9.7 | 0.18 | |
| 3.4 ± 0.7 | 3.4 ± 0.7 | 3.3 ± 0.7 | 0.58 | |
| | | | 0.58# | |
| 1 (1.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
| 9 (8.9%) | 8 (12.1%) | 1 (2.9%) | ||
| 40 (39.6%) | 22 (33.3%) | 18 (51.4%) | ||
| 51 (50.5%) | 36 (54.6%) | 15 (42.8%) |
*Two tailed Student t test, unless otherwise specified; #Mantel Haenszel Chi Square test.
Figure 4Comparison of signal to noise ratios (SNRs) and contrast to noise ratios (CNRs) between patient cohorts in normal sinus rhythm (NSR) versus atrial fibrillation (AF).
Association of heart rate with signal to noise and contrast to noise ratios
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −2.32 | −5.30, 0.66 | 0.13 | 0.21 | −3.93, 4.34 | 0.92 | |
| −1.41 | −3.62, 0.80 | 0.21 | −0.33 | −3.29, 2.63 | 0.83 | |
| −2.29 | −4.42,-0.17 | 0.03 | −1.06 | −4.01, 1.88 | 0.48 | |
| −2.19 | −5.16, 0.78 | 0.15 | −0.23 | −4.35, 3.90 | 0.91 | |
| −1.77 | −4.12, 0.58 | 0.14 | −0.52 | −3.67, 2.63 | 0.75 | |
| −2.26 | −4.38,-0.14 | 0.04 | −1.10 | −4.04, 1.85 | 0.46 | |
Legend: Beta coefficients from multiple linear regression models with the respective SNR or CNR as the dependent variable, and heart rhythm and categorical HR as predictor variables. Results for HR categories presented in this table are compared to the following ‘reference’ HR category: 55 < HR ≤ 90 bpm (n = 66), and adjusted for heart rhythm.
Segmentation quality scores for entire patient cohort and by AF status
| | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.91 ± 0.63 | 2.92 ± 0.58 | 2.88 ± 0.73 | 0.86* | |
| | | | 0.78# | |
| Poor | 1 (1.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.9%) | |
| Moderate | 21 (21.7%) | 13 (20.6%) | 8 (23.5%) | |
| Good | 61 (62.9%) | 42 (66.7%) | 19 (55.9%) | |
| Excellent | 14 (14.4%) | 8 (12.7%) | 6 (17.7%) |
*Student's t-test; #Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test.