Tomoyuki Kido1, Kuniaki Hirai2, Ryo Ogawa3, Yuki Tanabe3, Masashi Nakamura3, Naoto Kawaguchi3, Akira Kurata3, Kouki Watanabe4, Michaela Schmidt5, Christoph Forman5, Teruhito Mochizuki6,7, Teruhito Kido3. 1. Department of Radiology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Hitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, 791-0295, Japan. tomozo0421@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Uwajima City Hospital, Uwajima, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Hitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, 791-0295, Japan. 4. Department of Cardiology, Saiseikai Matsuyama Hospital, Matsuyama, Japan. 5. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany. 6. Department of Radiology, Yoshino Hospital, Imabari, Japan. 7. Department of Radiology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Feature tracking (FT) has become an established tool for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-based strain analysis. Recently, the compressed sensing (CS) technique has been applied to cine CMR, which has drastically reduced its acquisition time. However, the effects of CS imaging on FT strain analysis need to be carefully studied. This study aimed to investigate the use of CS cine CMR for FT strain analysis compared to conventional cine CMR. METHODS: Sixty-five patients with different left ventricular (LV) pathologies underwent both retrospective conventional cine CMR and prospective CS cine CMR using a prototype sequence with the comparable temporal and spatial resolution at 3 T. Eight short-axis cine images covering the entire LV were obtained and used for LV volume assessment and FT strain analysis. Prospective CS cine CMR data over 1.5 heartbeats were acquired to capture the complete end-diastolic data between the first and second heartbeats. LV volume assessment and FT strain analysis were performed using a dedicated software (ci42; Circle Cardiovasacular Imaging, Calgary, Canada), and the global circumferential strain (GCS) and GCS rate were calculated from both cine CMR sequences. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the GCS (- 17.1% [- 11.7, - 19.5] vs. - 16.1% [- 11.9, - 19.3; p = 0.508) and GCS rate (- 0.8 [- 0.6, - 1.0] vs. - 0.8 [- 0.7, - 1.0]; p = 0.587) obtained using conventional and CS cine CMR. The GCS obtained using both methods showed excellent agreement (y = 0.99x - 0.24; r = 0.95; p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the mean difference in the GCS between the conventional and CS cine CMR was 0.1% with limits of agreement between -2.8% and 3.0%. No significant differences were found in all LV volume assessment between both types of cine CMR. CONCLUSION: CS cine CMR could be used for GCS assessment by CMR-FT as well as conventional cine CMR. This finding further enhances the clinical utility of high-speed CS cine CMR imaging.
BACKGROUND: Feature tracking (FT) has become an established tool for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-based strain analysis. Recently, the compressed sensing (CS) technique has been applied to cine CMR, which has drastically reduced its acquisition time. However, the effects of CS imaging on FT strain analysis need to be carefully studied. This study aimed to investigate the use of CS cine CMR for FT strain analysis compared to conventional cine CMR. METHODS: Sixty-five patients with different left ventricular (LV) pathologies underwent both retrospective conventional cine CMR and prospective CS cine CMR using a prototype sequence with the comparable temporal and spatial resolution at 3 T. Eight short-axis cine images covering the entire LV were obtained and used for LV volume assessment and FT strain analysis. Prospective CS cine CMR data over 1.5 heartbeats were acquired to capture the complete end-diastolic data between the first and second heartbeats. LV volume assessment and FT strain analysis were performed using a dedicated software (ci42; Circle Cardiovasacular Imaging, Calgary, Canada), and the global circumferential strain (GCS) and GCS rate were calculated from both cine CMR sequences. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the GCS (- 17.1% [- 11.7, - 19.5] vs. - 16.1% [- 11.9, - 19.3; p = 0.508) and GCS rate (- 0.8 [- 0.6, - 1.0] vs. - 0.8 [- 0.7, - 1.0]; p = 0.587) obtained using conventional and CS cine CMR. The GCS obtained using both methods showed excellent agreement (y = 0.99x - 0.24; r = 0.95; p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the mean difference in the GCS between the conventional and CS cine CMR was 0.1% with limits of agreement between -2.8% and 3.0%. No significant differences were found in all LV volume assessment between both types of cine CMR. CONCLUSION:CS cine CMR could be used for GCS assessment by CMR-FT as well as conventional cine CMR. This finding further enhances the clinical utility of high-speed CS cine CMR imaging.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Compressed sensing; Feature tracking; Myocardial strain
Authors: Khaled Alfakih; Sven Plein; Holger Thiele; Tim Jones; John P Ridgway; Mohan U Sivananthan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Andreas Schuster; Kan N Hor; Johannes T Kowallick; Philipp Beerbaum; Shelby Kutty Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Jonathan E N Langton; Hoi-Ieng Lam; Brett R Cowan; Christopher J Occleshaw; Ruvin Gabriel; Boris Lowe; Suzanne Lydiard; Andreas Greiser; Michaela Schmidt; Alistair A Young Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Kan N Hor; William M Gottliebson; Christopher Carson; Erin Wash; James Cnota; Robert Fleck; Janaka Wansapura; Piotr Klimeczek; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Eugene S Chung; D Woodrow Benson; Wojciech Mazur Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-02