PURPOSE: Accurate triggering of the cardiac cycle is mandatory for optimal image acquisition and thus diagnostic quality in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. The purpose of this work was to evaluate Doppler ultrasound as an alternative trigger method in cardiac MRI. METHODS: Steady-state free precession (SSFP) 2D cine CMR was performed in 11 healthy subjects at 1.5T. Doppler ultrasound (DUS), electrocardiogram (ECG) and pulse oximetry (POX) were used for cardiac triggering. DUS peak detection was verified in comparison to ECG. Quantitative analysis of image quality of each gating method was determined by calculating endocardial border sharpness (EBS) and left ventricular (LV) function parameters and compared with ECG. RESULTS: Mean difference between DUS and ECG in detected RR intervals was 0.04 ± 63 ms (r = 0.96). Trigger jitter was not different between ECG and DUS (P = 0.15) but significant different between ECG and POX (P = 0.01). EBS was similar between each method (3.1 ± 0.2 / 2.6 ± 0.2 / 2.9 ± 0.2 pixel). Mean differences in stroke volume were not significantly different with -1 ± 7 mL (ECG/DUS, P = 0.9) and 2 ± 10 mL (ECG/POX, P = 0.8). CONCLUSION: Cine cardiac MRI using DUS was successfully demonstrated. DUS triggering is an alternative method for cardiac MRI and may be applied in a clinical setting.
PURPOSE: Accurate triggering of the cardiac cycle is mandatory for optimal image acquisition and thus diagnostic quality in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. The purpose of this work was to evaluate Doppler ultrasound as an alternative trigger method in cardiac MRI. METHODS: Steady-state free precession (SSFP) 2D cine CMR was performed in 11 healthy subjects at 1.5T. Doppler ultrasound (DUS), electrocardiogram (ECG) and pulse oximetry (POX) were used for cardiac triggering. DUS peak detection was verified in comparison to ECG. Quantitative analysis of image quality of each gating method was determined by calculating endocardial border sharpness (EBS) and left ventricular (LV) function parameters and compared with ECG. RESULTS: Mean difference between DUS and ECG in detected RR intervals was 0.04 ± 63 ms (r = 0.96). Trigger jitter was not different between ECG and DUS (P = 0.15) but significant different between ECG and POX (P = 0.01). EBS was similar between each method (3.1 ± 0.2 / 2.6 ± 0.2 / 2.9 ± 0.2 pixel). Mean differences in stroke volume were not significantly different with -1 ± 7 mL (ECG/DUS, P = 0.9) and 2 ± 10 mL (ECG/POX, P = 0.8). CONCLUSION: Cine cardiac MRI using DUS was successfully demonstrated. DUS triggering is an alternative method for cardiac MRI and may be applied in a clinical setting.
Authors: Bruno Madore; Gabriela Belsley; Cheng-Chieh Cheng; Frank Preiswerk; Marie Foley Kijewski; Pei-Hsin Wu; Laurel B Martell; Josien P W Pluim; Marcelo Di Carli; Stephen C Moore Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 4.174
Authors: Janusz Jezewski; Janusz Wrobel; Adam Matonia; Krzysztof Horoba; Radek Martinek; Tomasz Kupka; Michal Jezewski Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Fabian Kording; Jin Yamamura; Manuela Tavares de Sousa; Christian Ruprecht; Erik Hedström; Anthony H Aletras; P Ellen Grant; Andrew J Powell; Kai Fehrs; Gerhard Adam; Hendrik Kooijman; Bjoern P Schoennagel Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Fabian Kording; Bjoern P Schoennagel; Manuela Tavares de Sousa; Kai Fehrs; Gerhard Adam; Jin Yamamura; Christian Ruprecht Journal: Magn Reson Med Sci Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 2.471
Authors: An Qi Duan; Mitchell C Lock; Sunthara Rajan Perumal; Jack R Darby; Jia Yin Soo; Joseph B Selvanayagam; Christopher K Macgowan; Mike Seed; Janna L Morrison Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Fabian Kording; Jin Yamamura; Gunnar Lund; Friedrich Ueberle; Caroline Jung; Gerhard Adam; Bjoern Philip Schoennagel Journal: Magn Reson Med Sci Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 2.471