Cargando…
Use of a 1.0 Tesla open scanner for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study
BACKGROUND: Open cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scanners offer the potential for imaging patients with claustrophobia or large body size, but at a lower 1.0 Tesla magnetic field. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of open CMR for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease....
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4490663/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26004027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0144-y |
_version_ | 1782379548710535168 |
---|---|
author | Lu, Jimmy C Nielsen, James C Morowitz, Layne Musani, Muzammil Ghadimi Mahani, Maryam Agarwal, Prachi P. Ibrahim, El-Sayed H. Dorfman, Adam L. |
author_facet | Lu, Jimmy C Nielsen, James C Morowitz, Layne Musani, Muzammil Ghadimi Mahani, Maryam Agarwal, Prachi P. Ibrahim, El-Sayed H. Dorfman, Adam L. |
author_sort | Lu, Jimmy C |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Open cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scanners offer the potential for imaging patients with claustrophobia or large body size, but at a lower 1.0 Tesla magnetic field. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of open CMR for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study included all patients ≤18 years old or with congenital heart disease who underwent CMR on an open 1.0 Tesla scanner at two centers from 2012–2014. Indications for CMR and clinical questions were extracted from the medical record. Studies were qualitatively graded for image quality and diagnostic utility. In a subset of 25 patients, signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios were compared to size- and diagnosis-matched patients with CMR on a 1.5 Tesla scanner. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (median 17.3 years old, 60% male) were included. Congenital heart disease was present in 32 (50%), with tetralogy of Fallot and bicuspid aortic valve the most common diagnoses. Open CMR was used due to scheduling/equipment issues in 51 (80%), claustrophobia in 7 (11%), and patient size in 3 (5%); 4 patients with claustrophobia had failed CMR on a different scanner, but completed the study on open CMR without sedation. All patients had good or excellent image quality on black blood, phase contrast, magnetic resonance angiography, and late gadolinium enhancement imaging. There was below average image quality in 3/63 (5%) patients with cine images, and 4/15 (27%) patients with coronary artery imaging. SNR and CNR were decreased in cine and magnetic resonance angiography images compared to 1.5 Tesla. The clinical question was answered adequately in all but 2 patients; 1 patient with a Fontan had artifact from an embolization coil limiting RV volume analysis, and in 1 patient the right coronary artery origin was not well seen. CONCLUSIONS: Open 1.0 Tesla scanners can effectively evaluate pediatric and congenital heart disease, including patients with claustrophobia and larger body size. Despite minor artifacts and differences in SNR and CNR, the majority of clinical questions can be answered adequately, with some limitations with coronary artery imaging. Further evaluation is necessary to optimize protocols and image quality. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4490663 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44906632015-07-13 Use of a 1.0 Tesla open scanner for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study Lu, Jimmy C Nielsen, James C Morowitz, Layne Musani, Muzammil Ghadimi Mahani, Maryam Agarwal, Prachi P. Ibrahim, El-Sayed H. Dorfman, Adam L. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Research BACKGROUND: Open cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scanners offer the potential for imaging patients with claustrophobia or large body size, but at a lower 1.0 Tesla magnetic field. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of open CMR for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study included all patients ≤18 years old or with congenital heart disease who underwent CMR on an open 1.0 Tesla scanner at two centers from 2012–2014. Indications for CMR and clinical questions were extracted from the medical record. Studies were qualitatively graded for image quality and diagnostic utility. In a subset of 25 patients, signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios were compared to size- and diagnosis-matched patients with CMR on a 1.5 Tesla scanner. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (median 17.3 years old, 60% male) were included. Congenital heart disease was present in 32 (50%), with tetralogy of Fallot and bicuspid aortic valve the most common diagnoses. Open CMR was used due to scheduling/equipment issues in 51 (80%), claustrophobia in 7 (11%), and patient size in 3 (5%); 4 patients with claustrophobia had failed CMR on a different scanner, but completed the study on open CMR without sedation. All patients had good or excellent image quality on black blood, phase contrast, magnetic resonance angiography, and late gadolinium enhancement imaging. There was below average image quality in 3/63 (5%) patients with cine images, and 4/15 (27%) patients with coronary artery imaging. SNR and CNR were decreased in cine and magnetic resonance angiography images compared to 1.5 Tesla. The clinical question was answered adequately in all but 2 patients; 1 patient with a Fontan had artifact from an embolization coil limiting RV volume analysis, and in 1 patient the right coronary artery origin was not well seen. CONCLUSIONS: Open 1.0 Tesla scanners can effectively evaluate pediatric and congenital heart disease, including patients with claustrophobia and larger body size. Despite minor artifacts and differences in SNR and CNR, the majority of clinical questions can be answered adequately, with some limitations with coronary artery imaging. Further evaluation is necessary to optimize protocols and image quality. BioMed Central 2015-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4490663/ /pubmed/26004027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0144-y Text en © Lu et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Lu, Jimmy C Nielsen, James C Morowitz, Layne Musani, Muzammil Ghadimi Mahani, Maryam Agarwal, Prachi P. Ibrahim, El-Sayed H. Dorfman, Adam L. Use of a 1.0 Tesla open scanner for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study |
title | Use of a 1.0 Tesla open scanner for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study |
title_full | Use of a 1.0 Tesla open scanner for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study |
title_fullStr | Use of a 1.0 Tesla open scanner for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | Use of a 1.0 Tesla open scanner for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study |
title_short | Use of a 1.0 Tesla open scanner for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study |
title_sort | use of a 1.0 tesla open scanner for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4490663/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26004027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0144-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lujimmyc useofa10teslaopenscannerforevaluationofpediatricandcongenitalheartdiseasearetrospectivecohortstudy AT nielsenjamesc useofa10teslaopenscannerforevaluationofpediatricandcongenitalheartdiseasearetrospectivecohortstudy AT morowitzlayne useofa10teslaopenscannerforevaluationofpediatricandcongenitalheartdiseasearetrospectivecohortstudy AT musanimuzammil useofa10teslaopenscannerforevaluationofpediatricandcongenitalheartdiseasearetrospectivecohortstudy AT ghadimimahanimaryam useofa10teslaopenscannerforevaluationofpediatricandcongenitalheartdiseasearetrospectivecohortstudy AT agarwalprachip useofa10teslaopenscannerforevaluationofpediatricandcongenitalheartdiseasearetrospectivecohortstudy AT ibrahimelsayedh useofa10teslaopenscannerforevaluationofpediatricandcongenitalheartdiseasearetrospectivecohortstudy AT dorfmanadaml useofa10teslaopenscannerforevaluationofpediatricandcongenitalheartdiseasearetrospectivecohortstudy |