Masahiro Takakado1, Tomoyuki Kido2, Ryo Ogawa1, Yoshihiro Takimoto3, Tsuyoshi Tokuda1, Yuki Tanabe1, Naoto Kawaguchi1, Jianing Pang4, Yoshiaki Komori5, Teruhito Kido1. 1. Department of Radiology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, Japan. 2. Department of Radiology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, Japan. tomozo0421@gmail.com. 3. Ehime University Hospital, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, Japan. 4. Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc., Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Siemens Healthcare K.K., Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We applied a combination of compressed-sensing (CS) and retrospective motion correction to free-breathing cine magnetic resonance (MR) (FBCS cine MoCo). We validated FBCS cine MoCo by comparing it with breath-hold (BH) conventional cine MR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five volunteers underwent both FBCS cine MoCo and BH conventional cine MR imaging. Twelve consecutive short-axis cine images were obtained. We compared the examination time, image quality and biventricular volumetric assessments between the two cine MR. RESULTS: FBCS cine MoCo required a significantly shorter examination time than BH conventional cine (135 s [110-143 s] vs. 198 s [186-349 s], p < 0.001). The image quality scores were not significantly different between the two techniques (End-diastole: FBCS cine MoCo; 4.7 ± 0.5 vs. BH conventional cine; 4.6 ± 0.6; p = 0.77, End-systole: FBCS cine MoCo; 4.5 ± 0.5 vs. BH conventional cine; 4.5 ± 0.6; p = 0.52). No significant differences were observed in all biventricular volumetric assessments between the two techniques. The mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CI), based on Bland-Altman analysis, were - 0.3 mL (- 8.2 - 7.5 mL) for LVEDV, 0.2 mL (- 5.6 - 5.9 mL) for LVESV, - 0.5 mL (- 6.3 - 5.2 mL) for LVSV, - 0.3% (- 3.5 - 3.0%) for LVEF, - 0.1 g (- 8.5 - 8.3 g) for LVED mass, 1.4 mL (- 15.5 - 18.3 mL) for RVEDV, 2.1 mL (- 11.2 - 15.3 mL) for RVESV, - 0.6 mL (- 9.7 - 8.4 mL) for RVSV, - 1.0% (- 6.5 - 4.6%) for RVEF. CONCLUSION: FBCS cine MoCo can potentially replace multiple BH conventional cine MR and improve the clinical utility of cine MR.
PURPOSE: We applied a combination of compressed-sensing (CS) and retrospective motion correction to free-breathing cine magnetic resonance (MR) (FBCS cine MoCo). We validated FBCS cine MoCo by comparing it with breath-hold (BH) conventional cine MR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five volunteers underwent both FBCS cine MoCo and BH conventional cine MR imaging. Twelve consecutive short-axis cine images were obtained. We compared the examination time, image quality and biventricular volumetric assessments between the two cine MR. RESULTS: FBCS cine MoCo required a significantly shorter examination time than BH conventional cine (135 s [110-143 s] vs. 198 s [186-349 s], p < 0.001). The image quality scores were not significantly different between the two techniques (End-diastole: FBCS cine MoCo; 4.7 ± 0.5 vs. BH conventional cine; 4.6 ± 0.6; p = 0.77, End-systole: FBCS cine MoCo; 4.5 ± 0.5 vs. BH conventional cine; 4.5 ± 0.6; p = 0.52). No significant differences were observed in all biventricular volumetric assessments between the two techniques. The mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CI), based on Bland-Altman analysis, were - 0.3 mL (- 8.2 - 7.5 mL) for LVEDV, 0.2 mL (- 5.6 - 5.9 mL) for LVESV, - 0.5 mL (- 6.3 - 5.2 mL) for LVSV, - 0.3% (- 3.5 - 3.0%) for LVEF, - 0.1 g (- 8.5 - 8.3 g) for LVED mass, 1.4 mL (- 15.5 - 18.3 mL) for RVEDV, 2.1 mL (- 11.2 - 15.3 mL) for RVESV, - 0.6 mL (- 9.7 - 8.4 mL) for RVSV, - 1.0% (- 6.5 - 4.6%) for RVEF. CONCLUSION: FBCS cine MoCo can potentially replace multiple BH conventional cine MR and improve the clinical utility of cine MR.
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: Gianluca Pontone; Andrea I Guaricci; Daniele Andreini; Giovanni Ferro; Marco Guglielmo; Andrea Baggiano; Laura Fusini; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Valentina Lorenzoni; Saima Mushtaq; Edoardo Conte; Andrea Annoni; Alberto Formenti; Maria Elisabetta Mancini; Patrizia Carità; Massimo Verdecchia; Silvia Pica; Fabio Fazzari; Nicola Cosentino; Giancarlo Marenzi; Mark G Rabbat; Piergiuseppe Agostoni; Antonio L Bartorelli; Mauro Pepi; Pier Giorgio Masci Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Jeptha P Curtis; Seth I Sokol; Yongfei Wang; Saif S Rathore; Dennis T Ko; Farid Jadbabaie; Edward L Portnay; Stephen J Marshalko; Martha J Radford; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-08-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Frank Grothues; Gillian C Smith; James C C Moon; Nicholas G Bellenger; Peter Collins; Helmut U Klein; Dudley J Pennell Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-07-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jian Xu; Daniel Kim; Ricardo Otazo; Monvadi B Srichai; Ruth P Lim; Leon Axel; Kelly Anne Mcgorty; Thoralf Niendorf; Daniel K Sodickson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 4.813