BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Real-time compressed sensing cine (CSrt) provides reliable quantification for both ventricles but may alter image quality. The aim of this study was to assess image quality and the accuracy of left (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volumes, ejection fraction and mass quantifications based on a retrogated segmented compressed sensing 2D cine sequence (CSrg). METHODS: Thirty patients were enrolled. Each patient underwent the reference retrogated segmented steady-state free precession cine sequence (SSFPref), the real-time CSrt cine and the segmented retrogated prototype CSrg sequence providing the same slices. Functional parameters quantification and image quality rating were performed on SSFPref and CSrg images sets. The edge sharpness, which is an estimate of the edge spread function, was assessed for the three sequences. RESULTS: The mean scan time was: SSFPref = 485.4 ± 83.3 (SD) s (95% CI: 454.3-516.5) and CSrg = 58.3 ± 15.1 (SD) s (95% CI: 53.7-64.2) (p < 0.0001). CSrg subjective image quality score (median: 4; range: 2-4) was higher than the one provided by CSrt (median: 3; range: 2-4; p = 0.0008) and not different from SSFPref overall quality score (median: 4; range: 2-4; p = 0.31). CSrg provided similar LV and RV functional parameters to those assessed with SSFPref (p > 0.05). Edge sharpness was significantly better with CSrg (0.083 ± 0.013 (SD) pixel-1; 95% CI: 0.078-0.087) than with CSrt (0.070 ± 0.011 (SD) pixel-1; 95% CI: 0.066-0.074; p = 0.0004) and not different from the reference technique (0.075 ± 0.016 (SD) pixel-1; 95% CI: 0.069-0.081; p = 0.0516). CONCLUSIONS: CSrg cine provides in one minute an accurate quantification of LV and RV functional parameters without compromising subjective and objective image quality.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Real-time compressed sensing cine (CSrt) provides reliable quantification for both ventricles but may alter image quality. The aim of this study was to assess image quality and the accuracy of left (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volumes, ejection fraction and mass quantifications based on a retrogated segmented compressed sensing 2D cine sequence (CSrg). METHODS: Thirty patients were enrolled. Each patient underwent the reference retrogated segmented steady-state free precession cine sequence (SSFPref), the real-time CSrt cine and the segmented retrogated prototype CSrg sequence providing the same slices. Functional parameters quantification and image quality rating were performed on SSFPref and CSrg images sets. The edge sharpness, which is an estimate of the edge spread function, was assessed for the three sequences. RESULTS: The mean scan time was: SSFPref = 485.4 ± 83.3 (SD) s (95% CI: 454.3-516.5) and CSrg = 58.3 ± 15.1 (SD) s (95% CI: 53.7-64.2) (p < 0.0001). CSrg subjective image quality score (median: 4; range: 2-4) was higher than the one provided by CSrt (median: 3; range: 2-4; p = 0.0008) and not different from SSFPref overall quality score (median: 4; range: 2-4; p = 0.31). CSrg provided similar LV and RV functional parameters to those assessed with SSFPref (p > 0.05). Edge sharpness was significantly better with CSrg (0.083 ± 0.013 (SD) pixel-1; 95% CI: 0.078-0.087) than with CSrt (0.070 ± 0.011 (SD) pixel-1; 95% CI: 0.066-0.074; p = 0.0004) and not different from the reference technique (0.075 ± 0.016 (SD) pixel-1; 95% CI: 0.069-0.081; p = 0.0516). CONCLUSIONS: CSrg cine provides in one minute an accurate quantification of LV and RV functional parameters without compromising subjective and objective image quality.
Entities:
Keywords:
CMR; cardiac; compressed sensing; fast imaging; function; heart; image quality; magnetic resonance; retrogating; retrospective
Authors: Juliane Goebel; Felix Nensa; Haemi P Schemuth; Stefan Maderwald; Marcel Gratz; Harald H Quick; Thomas Schlosser; Kai Nassenstein Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Holger C Eberle; Kai Nassenstein; Christoph J Jensen; Thomas Schlosser; Georg V Sabin; Christoph K Naber; Oliver Bruder Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-07-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Juliane Goebel; Felix Nensa; Haemi P Schemuth; Stefan Maderwald; Harald H Quick; Thomas Schlosser; Kai Nassenstein Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Piotr Ponikowski; Adriaan A Voors; Stefan D Anker; Héctor Bueno; John G F Cleland; Andrew J S Coats; Volkmar Falk; José Ramón González-Juanatey; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Ewa A Jankowska; Mariell Jessup; Cecilia Linde; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; John T Parissis; Burkert Pieske; Jillian P Riley; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Luis M Ruilope; Frank Ruschitzka; Frans H Rutten; Peter van der Meer Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 15.534