BACKGROUND: Diffuse myocardial fibrosis may be quantified with magnetic resonance (MR) by calculating extracellular volume (ECV) fraction from native and post-contrast T1 values. The ideal modified look-locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) sequence for deriving T1 values has not been determined. This study aims to establish if systematic differences exist between suggested MOLLI schemes. METHODS: Twelve phantom gels were studied with inversion recovery spin echo MR at 3.0 tesla to determine reference T1. Gels were then scanned with six MOLLI sequences (3s)3b(3s)5b; 4b(3s)3b(3s)2b; 5b(3s)3b with flip angles of both 35° and 50° at a range of heart rates (HRs). In 10 healthy volunteers MOLLI studies were performed on two separate occasions. Mid ventricular native and post contrast T1 was measured and ECV (%) calculated. RESULTS: In phantoms, the co-efficient of variability at simulated HR [40-100] with a flip angle of 35° ranged from 6.77 to 9.55, and at 50° from 7.71 to 11.10. T1 was under-estimated by all MOLLI acquisitions. Error was greatest with longer T1, and increased as HR increased. The 10 volunteers had normal MR studies. Native T1 time was similar for all acquisitions but highest with the 5b(3s)3b 35° scheme (1,189.1±33.46 ms). Interstudy reproducibility was similar for all MOLLIs. CONCLUSIONS: The 5b(3s)3b MOLLI scheme agreed best with reference T1, without statistical difference between the six schemes. The shorter breath-hold time of 5b(3s)3b scheme may be preferable in clinical studies and warrants further investigation.
BACKGROUND: Diffuse myocardial fibrosis may be quantified with magnetic resonance (MR) by calculating extracellular volume (ECV) fraction from native and post-contrast T1 values. The ideal modified look-locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) sequence for deriving T1 values has not been determined. This study aims to establish if systematic differences exist between suggested MOLLI schemes. METHODS: Twelve phantom gels were studied with inversion recovery spin echo MR at 3.0 tesla to determine reference T1. Gels were then scanned with six MOLLI sequences (3s)3b(3s)5b; 4b(3s)3b(3s)2b; 5b(3s)3b with flip angles of both 35° and 50° at a range of heart rates (HRs). In 10 healthy volunteers MOLLI studies were performed on two separate occasions. Mid ventricular native and post contrast T1 was measured and ECV (%) calculated. RESULTS: In phantoms, the co-efficient of variability at simulated HR [40-100] with a flip angle of 35° ranged from 6.77 to 9.55, and at 50° from 7.71 to 11.10. T1 was under-estimated by all MOLLI acquisitions. Error was greatest with longer T1, and increased as HR increased. The 10 volunteers had normal MR studies. Native T1 time was similar for all acquisitions but highest with the 5b(3s)3b 35° scheme (1,189.1±33.46 ms). Interstudy reproducibility was similar for all MOLLIs. CONCLUSIONS: The 5b(3s)3b MOLLI scheme agreed best with reference T1, without statistical difference between the six schemes. The shorter breath-hold time of 5b(3s)3b scheme may be preferable in clinical studies and warrants further investigation.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Waren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Martin Ugander; Abiola J Oki; Li-Yueh Hsu; Peter Kellman; Andreas Greiser; Anthony H Aletras; Christopher T Sibley; Marcus Y Chen; W Patricia Bandettini; Andrew E Arai Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Daniel M Sado; Andrew S Flett; Sanjay M Banypersad; Steven K White; Viviana Maestrini; Giovanni Quarta; Robin H Lachmann; Elaine Murphy; Atul Mehta; Derralynn A Hughes; William J McKenna; Andrew M Taylor; Derek J Hausenloy; Philip N Hawkins; Perry M Elliott; James C Moon Journal: Heart Date: 2012-08-30 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Caterina Silva; James C Moon; Andrew G Elkington; Anna S John; Raad H Mohiaddin; Dudley J Pennell Journal: J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.160
Authors: Michael Salerno; Rajesh Janardhanan; Ronny S Jiji; Jeremy Brooks; Nebiyu Adenaw; Bhairav Mehta; Yang Yang; Patrick Antkowiak; Christopher M Kramer; Frederick H Epstein Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Peter Kellman; Hui Xue; Kelvin Chow; Bruce S Spottiswoode; Andrew E Arai; Richard B Thompson Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Eva M Serrao; Dimitri A Kessler; Bruno Carmo; Lucian Beer; Kevin M Brindle; Guido Buonincontri; Ferdia A Gallagher; Fiona J Gilbert; Edmund Godfrey; Martin J Graves; Mary A McLean; Evis Sala; Rolf F Schulte; Joshua D Kaggie Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Pankaj Garg; Hosamadin Assadi; Rachel Jones; Wei Bin Chan; Peter Metherall; Richard Thomas; Rob van der Geest; Andrew J Swift; Abdallah Al-Mohammad Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Joseph J Pagano; Deane Yim; Christopher Z Lam; Shi-Joon Yoo; Mike Seed; Lars Grosse-Wortmann Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2020-08-13
Authors: Peter P Swoboda; Adam K McDiarmid; Bara Erhayiem; Graham R Law; Pankaj Garg; David A Broadbent; David P Ripley; Tarique A Musa; Laura E Dobson; James R Foley; Graham J Fent; Stephen P Page; John P Greenwood; Sven Plein Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Samuli M O Rauhalammi; Kenneth Mangion; Pauline Hall Barrientos; David J A Carrick; Guillaume Clerfond; John McClure; Christie McComb; Aleksandra Radjenovic; Colin Berry Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 4.813