Tamer A Basha1,2, Mehmet Akçakaya3,4, Charlene Liew1, Connie W Tsao1, Francesca N Delling1, Gifty Addae1, Long Ngo1, Warren J Manning1,5, Reza Nezafat1. 1. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Systems and Biomedical Engineering Department, University of Cairo, Cairo, Egypt. 3. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 4. Center for Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate diagnostic image quality of 3D late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) with high isotropic spatial resolution (∼1.4 mm3 ) images reconstructed from randomly undersampled k-space using LOw-dimensional-structure Self-learning and Thresholding (LOST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 270 patients (181 men; 55 ± 14 years) referred for myocardial viability assessment. 3D LGE with isotropic spatial resolution of 1.4 ± 0.1 mm3 was acquired at 1.5T using a LOST acceleration rate of 3 to 5. In a subset of 121 patients, 3D LGE or phase-sensitive LGE were acquired with parallel imaging with an acceleration rate of 2 for comparison. Two readers evaluated image quality using a scale of 1 (poor) to 4 (excellent) and assessed for scar presence. The McNemar test statistic was used to compare the proportion of detected scar between the two sequences. We assessed the association between image quality and characteristics (age, gender, torso dimension, weight, heart rate), using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Overall, LGE detection proportions for 3D LGE with LOST were similar between readers 1 and 2 (16.30% vs. 18.15%). For image quality, readers gave 85.9% and 80.0%, respectively, for images categorized as good or excellent. Overall proportion of scar presence was not statistically different from conventional 3D LGE (28% vs. 33% [P = 0.17] for reader 1 and 26% vs. 31% [P = 0.37] for reader 2). Increasing subject heart rate was associated with lower image quality (estimated slope = -0.009 (P = 0.001)). CONCLUSION: High-resolution 3D LGE with LOST yields good to excellent image quality in >80% of patients and identifies patients with LV scar at the same rate as conventional 3D LGE. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1829-1838.
PURPOSE: To evaluate diagnostic image quality of 3D late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) with high isotropic spatial resolution (∼1.4 mm3 ) images reconstructed from randomly undersampled k-space using LOw-dimensional-structure Self-learning and Thresholding (LOST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 270 patients (181 men; 55 ± 14 years) referred for myocardial viability assessment. 3D LGE with isotropic spatial resolution of 1.4 ± 0.1 mm3 was acquired at 1.5T using a LOST acceleration rate of 3 to 5. In a subset of 121 patients, 3D LGE or phase-sensitive LGE were acquired with parallel imaging with an acceleration rate of 2 for comparison. Two readers evaluated image quality using a scale of 1 (poor) to 4 (excellent) and assessed for scar presence. The McNemar test statistic was used to compare the proportion of detected scar between the two sequences. We assessed the association between image quality and characteristics (age, gender, torso dimension, weight, heart rate), using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Overall, LGE detection proportions for 3D LGE with LOST were similar between readers 1 and 2 (16.30% vs. 18.15%). For image quality, readers gave 85.9% and 80.0%, respectively, for images categorized as good or excellent. Overall proportion of scar presence was not statistically different from conventional 3D LGE (28% vs. 33% [P = 0.17] for reader 1 and 26% vs. 31% [P = 0.37] for reader 2). Increasing subject heart rate was associated with lower image quality (estimated slope = -0.009 (P = 0.001)). CONCLUSION: High-resolution 3D LGE with LOST yields good to excellent image quality in >80% of patients and identifies patients with LV scar at the same rate as conventional 3D LGE. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1829-1838.
Authors: Stijntje D Roes; C Jan Willem Borleffs; Rob J van der Geest; Jos J M Westenberg; Nina Ajmone Marsan; Theodorus A M Kaandorp; Johan H C Reiber; Katja Zeppenfeld; Hildo J Lamb; Albert de Roos; Martin J Schalij; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-03-23 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Andrew T Yan; Adolphe J Shayne; Kenneth A Brown; Sandeep N Gupta; Carmen W Chan; Tuan M Luu; Marcelo F Di Carli; H Glenn Reynolds; William G Stevenson; Raymond Y Kwong Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-06-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mehdi H Moghari; Dana C Peters; Jouke Smink; Lois Goepfert; Kraig V Kissinger; Beth Goddu; Thomas H Hauser; Mark E Josephson; Warren J Manning; Reza Nezafat Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 4.668
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: Leah Iles; Heinz Pfluger; Lisa Lefkovits; Michelle J Butler; Peter M Kistler; David M Kaye; Andrew J Taylor Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Hussein Rayatzadeh; Alex Tan; Raymond H Chan; Shalin J Patel; Thomas H Hauser; Long Ngo; Jaime L Shaw; Susie N Hong; Peter Zimetbaum; Alfred E Buxton; Mark E Josephson; Warren J Manning; Reza Nezafat Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Christopher M Sandino; Joseph Y Cheng; Feiyu Chen; Morteza Mardani; John M Pauly; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: IEEE Signal Process Mag Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 12.551
Authors: Ahmed S Fahmy; Ulf Neisius; Connie W Tsao; Sophie Berg; Elizabeth Goddu; Patrick Pierce; Tamer A Basha; Long Ngo; Warren J Manning; Reza Nezafat Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 5.364