Cargando…

Comparison between compressed sensing and segmented cine cardiac magnetic resonance: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE: Highly accelerated compressed sensing cine has allowed for quantification of ventricular function in a single breath hold. However, compared to segmented breath hold techniques, there may be underestimation or overestimation of LV volumes. Furthermore, a heterogeneous sample of techniques h...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Craft, Jason, Li, Yulee, Nashta, Niloofar Fouladi, Weber, Jonathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10512640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37735355
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-023-03426-1
_version_ 1785108406150889472
author Craft, Jason
Li, Yulee
Nashta, Niloofar Fouladi
Weber, Jonathan
author_facet Craft, Jason
Li, Yulee
Nashta, Niloofar Fouladi
Weber, Jonathan
author_sort Craft, Jason
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Highly accelerated compressed sensing cine has allowed for quantification of ventricular function in a single breath hold. However, compared to segmented breath hold techniques, there may be underestimation or overestimation of LV volumes. Furthermore, a heterogeneous sample of techniques have been used in volunteers and patients for pre-clinical and clinical use. This can complicate individual comparisons where small, but statistically significant differences exist in left ventricular morphological and/or functional parameters. This meta-analysis aims to provide a comparison of conventional cine versus compressed sensing based reconstruction techniques in patients and volunteers. METHODS: Two investigators performed systematic searches for eligible studies using PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science to identify studies published 1/1/2010-3/1/2021. Ultimately, 15 studies were included for comparison between compressed sensing cine and conventional imaging. RESULTS: Compared to conventional cine, there were small, statistically significant overestimation of LV mass, underestimation of stroke volume and LV end diastolic volume (mean difference 2.65 g [CL 0.57–4.73], 2.52 mL [CL 0.73–4.31], and 2.39 mL [CL 0.07–4.70], respectively). Attenuated differences persisted across studies using prospective gating (underestimated stroke volume) and non-prospective gating (underestimation of stroke volume, overestimation of mass). There were no significant differences in LV volumes or LV mass with high or low acceleration subgroups in reference to conventional cine except slight underestimation of ejection fraction among high acceleration studies. Reduction in breath hold acquisition time ranged from 33 to 64%, while reduction in total scan duration ranged from 43 to 97%. CONCLUSION: LV volume and mass assessment using compressed sensing CMR is accurate compared to conventional parallel imaging cine. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-023-03426-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10512640
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105126402023-09-22 Comparison between compressed sensing and segmented cine cardiac magnetic resonance: a meta-analysis Craft, Jason Li, Yulee Nashta, Niloofar Fouladi Weber, Jonathan BMC Cardiovasc Disord Research PURPOSE: Highly accelerated compressed sensing cine has allowed for quantification of ventricular function in a single breath hold. However, compared to segmented breath hold techniques, there may be underestimation or overestimation of LV volumes. Furthermore, a heterogeneous sample of techniques have been used in volunteers and patients for pre-clinical and clinical use. This can complicate individual comparisons where small, but statistically significant differences exist in left ventricular morphological and/or functional parameters. This meta-analysis aims to provide a comparison of conventional cine versus compressed sensing based reconstruction techniques in patients and volunteers. METHODS: Two investigators performed systematic searches for eligible studies using PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science to identify studies published 1/1/2010-3/1/2021. Ultimately, 15 studies were included for comparison between compressed sensing cine and conventional imaging. RESULTS: Compared to conventional cine, there were small, statistically significant overestimation of LV mass, underestimation of stroke volume and LV end diastolic volume (mean difference 2.65 g [CL 0.57–4.73], 2.52 mL [CL 0.73–4.31], and 2.39 mL [CL 0.07–4.70], respectively). Attenuated differences persisted across studies using prospective gating (underestimated stroke volume) and non-prospective gating (underestimation of stroke volume, overestimation of mass). There were no significant differences in LV volumes or LV mass with high or low acceleration subgroups in reference to conventional cine except slight underestimation of ejection fraction among high acceleration studies. Reduction in breath hold acquisition time ranged from 33 to 64%, while reduction in total scan duration ranged from 43 to 97%. CONCLUSION: LV volume and mass assessment using compressed sensing CMR is accurate compared to conventional parallel imaging cine. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-023-03426-1. BioMed Central 2023-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10512640/ /pubmed/37735355 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-023-03426-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Craft, Jason
Li, Yulee
Nashta, Niloofar Fouladi
Weber, Jonathan
Comparison between compressed sensing and segmented cine cardiac magnetic resonance: a meta-analysis
title Comparison between compressed sensing and segmented cine cardiac magnetic resonance: a meta-analysis
title_full Comparison between compressed sensing and segmented cine cardiac magnetic resonance: a meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison between compressed sensing and segmented cine cardiac magnetic resonance: a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between compressed sensing and segmented cine cardiac magnetic resonance: a meta-analysis
title_short Comparison between compressed sensing and segmented cine cardiac magnetic resonance: a meta-analysis
title_sort comparison between compressed sensing and segmented cine cardiac magnetic resonance: a meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10512640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37735355
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-023-03426-1
work_keys_str_mv AT craftjason comparisonbetweencompressedsensingandsegmentedcinecardiacmagneticresonanceametaanalysis
AT liyulee comparisonbetweencompressedsensingandsegmentedcinecardiacmagneticresonanceametaanalysis
AT nashtaniloofarfouladi comparisonbetweencompressedsensingandsegmentedcinecardiacmagneticresonanceametaanalysis
AT weberjonathan comparisonbetweencompressedsensingandsegmentedcinecardiacmagneticresonanceametaanalysis