Ravi Ranjan1, Christopher J McGann2, Eun-Kee Jeong3, KyungPyo Hong3, Eugene G Kholmovski4, Josh Blauer2, Brent D Wilson2, Nassir F Marrouche2, Daniel Kim3. 1. CARMA Center, Division of Cardiology, Internal Medicine, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Rm 4A100, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA ravi.ranjan@hsc.uah.edu. 2. CARMA Center, Division of Cardiology, Internal Medicine, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Rm 4A100, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA. 3. UCAIR, Department of Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 4. CARMA Center, Division of Cardiology, Internal Medicine, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Rm 4A100, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA UCAIR, Department of Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Abstract
AIM: Late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a useful tool for facilitating ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. Unfortunately, most VT ablation candidates often have prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and do not undergo cardiac MRI largely due to image artefacts generated by ICD. A prior study has reported success of 'wideband' LGE MRI for imaging myocardial scar without image artefacts induced by ICD at 1.5T. The purpose of this study was to widen the availability of wideband LGE MRI to 3T, since it has the potential to achieve higher spatial resolution than 1.5T. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the performance of standard and wideband LGE MRI pulse sequences in phantoms and canines with myocardial lesions created by radiofrequency ablation. Standard LGE MRI produced image artefacts induced by ICD and 49% accuracy in detecting 97 myocardial scars examined in this study, whereas wideband LGE MRI produced artefact-free images and 94% accuracy in detecting scars. The mean image quality score (1 = nondiagnostic, 2 = poor, 3 = adequate, 4 = good, 5 = excellent) was significantly (P < 0.001) higher for wideband (3.7 ± 0.8) than for standard LGE MRI (2.1 ± 0.7). The mean artefact level score (1 = minimal, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, 4 = severe, 5 = nondiagnostic) was significantly (P < 0.001) lower for wideband (2.1 ± 0.8) than for standard LGE MRI (4.0 ± 0.6). Wideband LGE MRI agreed better with gross pathology than standard LGE MRI. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of wideband LGE MRI for suppression of image artefacts induced by ICD at 3T. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIM: Late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a useful tool for facilitating ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. Unfortunately, most VT ablation candidates often have prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and do not undergo cardiac MRI largely due to image artefacts generated by ICD. A prior study has reported success of 'wideband' LGE MRI for imaging myocardial scar without image artefacts induced by ICD at 1.5T. The purpose of this study was to widen the availability of wideband LGE MRI to 3T, since it has the potential to achieve higher spatial resolution than 1.5T. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the performance of standard and wideband LGE MRI pulse sequences in phantoms and canines with myocardial lesions created by radiofrequency ablation. Standard LGE MRI produced image artefacts induced by ICD and 49% accuracy in detecting 97 myocardial scars examined in this study, whereas wideband LGE MRI produced artefact-free images and 94% accuracy in detecting scars. The mean image quality score (1 = nondiagnostic, 2 = poor, 3 = adequate, 4 = good, 5 = excellent) was significantly (P < 0.001) higher for wideband (3.7 ± 0.8) than for standard LGE MRI (2.1 ± 0.7). The mean artefact level score (1 = minimal, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, 4 = severe, 5 = nondiagnostic) was significantly (P < 0.001) lower for wideband (2.1 ± 0.8) than for standard LGE MRI (4.0 ± 0.6). Wideband LGE MRI agreed better with gross pathology than standard LGE MRI. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of wideband LGE MRI for suppression of image artefacts induced by ICD at 3T. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Etienne M Aliot; William G Stevenson; Jesus Ma Almendral-Garrote; Frank Bogun; C Hugh Calkins; Etienne Delacretaz; Paolo Della Bella; Gerhard Hindricks; Pierre Jaïs; Mark E Josephson; Josef Kautzner; G Neal Kay; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Bruce B Lerman; Francis Marchlinski; Vivek Reddy; Martin-Jan Schalij; Richard Schilling; Kyoko Soejima; David Wilber Journal: Europace Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Saman Nazarian; Rozann Hansford; Ariel Roguin; Dorith Goldsher; Menekhem M Zviman; Albert C Lardo; Brian S Caffo; Kevin D Frick; Michael A Kraut; Ihab R Kamel; Hugh Calkins; Ronald D Berger; David A Bluemke; Henry R Halperin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Vivek Y Reddy; Matthew R Reynolds; Petr Neuzil; Allison W Richardson; Milos Taborsky; Krit Jongnarangsin; Stepan Kralovec; Lucie Sediva; Jeremy N Ruskin; Mark E Josephson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-12-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hiroshi Ashikaga; Tetsuo Sasano; Jun Dong; M Muz Zviman; Robert Evers; Bruce Hopenfeld; Valeria Castro; Robert H Helm; Timm Dickfeld; Saman Nazarian; J Kevin Donahue; Ronald D Berger; Hugh Calkins; M Roselle Abraham; Eduardo Marbán; Albert C Lardo; Elliot R McVeigh; Henry R Halperin Journal: Circ Res Date: 2007-10-04 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Pierpaolo Lupo; Riccardo Cappato; Giovanni Di Leo; Francesco Secchi; Giacomo D E Papini; Sara Foresti; Hussam Ali; Guido M G De Ambroggi; Antonio Sorgente; Gianluca Epicoco; Paola M Cannaò; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Amita Singh; Keigo Kawaji; Neha Goyal; Noreen T Nazir; Andrew Beaser; Virginia O'Keefe-Baker; Karima Addetia; Roderick Tung; Peng Hu; Victor Mor-Avi; Amit R Patel Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Ananna Zaman; Samantha Zhao; Jordana Kron; Antonio Abbate; Anna Tomdio; W Gregory Hundley; Jennifer H Jordan Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 3.955
Authors: KyungPyo Hong; Jeremy D Collins; Bradley P Knight; James C Carr; Daniel C Lee; Daniel Kim Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-09-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Amir Ali Rahsepar; Jeremy D Collins; Bradley P Knight; KyungPyo Hong; James C Carr; Daniel Kim Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Sarah M Schwartz; Ashitha Pathrose; Ali M Serhal; Ann B Ragin; Jessica Charron; Bradley P Knight; Rod S Passman; Ryan J Avery; Daniel Kim Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2020-11-13