Cargando…

Cardiac MR elastography using reduced‐FOV, single‐shot, spin‐echo EPI

PURPOSE: To implement a reduced field of view (rFOV) technique for cardiac MR elastography (MRE) and to demonstrate the improvement in image quality of both magnitude images and post‐processed MRE stiffness maps compared to the conventional full field of view (full‐FOV) acquisition. METHODS: With In...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sui, Yi, Arunachalam, Shivaram P., Arani, Arvin, Trzasko, Joshua D., Young, Phillip M., Glockner, James F., Glaser, Kevin J., Lake, David S., McGee, Kiaran P., Manduca, Armando, Rossman, Phillip J., Ehman, Richard L., Araoz, Philip A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5876088/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29194738
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.27029
_version_ 1783310456920735744
author Sui, Yi
Arunachalam, Shivaram P.
Arani, Arvin
Trzasko, Joshua D.
Young, Phillip M.
Glockner, James F.
Glaser, Kevin J.
Lake, David S.
McGee, Kiaran P.
Manduca, Armando
Rossman, Phillip J.
Ehman, Richard L.
Araoz, Philip A.
author_facet Sui, Yi
Arunachalam, Shivaram P.
Arani, Arvin
Trzasko, Joshua D.
Young, Phillip M.
Glockner, James F.
Glaser, Kevin J.
Lake, David S.
McGee, Kiaran P.
Manduca, Armando
Rossman, Phillip J.
Ehman, Richard L.
Araoz, Philip A.
author_sort Sui, Yi
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To implement a reduced field of view (rFOV) technique for cardiac MR elastography (MRE) and to demonstrate the improvement in image quality of both magnitude images and post‐processed MRE stiffness maps compared to the conventional full field of view (full‐FOV) acquisition. METHODS: With Institutional Review Board approval, 17 healthy volunteers underwent both full‐FOV and rFOV cardiac MRE scans using 140‐Hz vibrations. Two cardiac radiologists blindly compared the magnitude images and stiffness maps and graded the images based on several image quality attributes using a 5‐point ordinal scale. Fisher's combined probability test was performed to assess the overall evaluation. The octahedral shear strain‐based signal‐to‐noise ratio (OSS‐SNR) and median stiffness over the left ventricular myocardium were also compared. RESULTS: One volunteer was excluded because of an inconsistent imaging resolution during the exam. In the remaining 16 volunteers (9 males, 7 females), the rFOV scans outperformed the full‐FOV scans in terms of subjective image quality and ghosting artifacts in the magnitude images and stiffness maps, as well as the overall preference. The quantitative measurements showed that rFOV had significantly higher OSS‐SNR (median: 1.4 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2–1.5] vs. 2.1 [95% CI: 1.8–2.4]), P < 0.05) compared to full‐FOV. Although no significant change was found in the median myocardial stiffness between the 2 scans, we observed a decrease in the stiffness variation within the myocardium from 2.1 kPa (95% CI: [1.9, 2.3]) to 1.9 kPa (95% CI: [1.7, 2.0]) for full‐FOV and rFOV, respectively (P < 0.05) in a subgroup of 7 subjects with ghosting present in the myocardium. CONCLUSION: This pilot volunteer study demonstrated that rFOV cardiac MRE has the capability to reduce ghosting and to improve image quality in both MRE magnitude images and stiffness maps. Magn Reson Med 80:231–238, 2018. © 2017 The Authors Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5876088
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58760882018-04-23 Cardiac MR elastography using reduced‐FOV, single‐shot, spin‐echo EPI Sui, Yi Arunachalam, Shivaram P. Arani, Arvin Trzasko, Joshua D. Young, Phillip M. Glockner, James F. Glaser, Kevin J. Lake, David S. McGee, Kiaran P. Manduca, Armando Rossman, Phillip J. Ehman, Richard L. Araoz, Philip A. Magn Reson Med Full Papers—Imaging Methodology PURPOSE: To implement a reduced field of view (rFOV) technique for cardiac MR elastography (MRE) and to demonstrate the improvement in image quality of both magnitude images and post‐processed MRE stiffness maps compared to the conventional full field of view (full‐FOV) acquisition. METHODS: With Institutional Review Board approval, 17 healthy volunteers underwent both full‐FOV and rFOV cardiac MRE scans using 140‐Hz vibrations. Two cardiac radiologists blindly compared the magnitude images and stiffness maps and graded the images based on several image quality attributes using a 5‐point ordinal scale. Fisher's combined probability test was performed to assess the overall evaluation. The octahedral shear strain‐based signal‐to‐noise ratio (OSS‐SNR) and median stiffness over the left ventricular myocardium were also compared. RESULTS: One volunteer was excluded because of an inconsistent imaging resolution during the exam. In the remaining 16 volunteers (9 males, 7 females), the rFOV scans outperformed the full‐FOV scans in terms of subjective image quality and ghosting artifacts in the magnitude images and stiffness maps, as well as the overall preference. The quantitative measurements showed that rFOV had significantly higher OSS‐SNR (median: 1.4 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2–1.5] vs. 2.1 [95% CI: 1.8–2.4]), P < 0.05) compared to full‐FOV. Although no significant change was found in the median myocardial stiffness between the 2 scans, we observed a decrease in the stiffness variation within the myocardium from 2.1 kPa (95% CI: [1.9, 2.3]) to 1.9 kPa (95% CI: [1.7, 2.0]) for full‐FOV and rFOV, respectively (P < 0.05) in a subgroup of 7 subjects with ghosting present in the myocardium. CONCLUSION: This pilot volunteer study demonstrated that rFOV cardiac MRE has the capability to reduce ghosting and to improve image quality in both MRE magnitude images and stiffness maps. Magn Reson Med 80:231–238, 2018. © 2017 The Authors Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-12-01 2018-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5876088/ /pubmed/29194738 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.27029 Text en © 2017 The Authors Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Full Papers—Imaging Methodology
Sui, Yi
Arunachalam, Shivaram P.
Arani, Arvin
Trzasko, Joshua D.
Young, Phillip M.
Glockner, James F.
Glaser, Kevin J.
Lake, David S.
McGee, Kiaran P.
Manduca, Armando
Rossman, Phillip J.
Ehman, Richard L.
Araoz, Philip A.
Cardiac MR elastography using reduced‐FOV, single‐shot, spin‐echo EPI
title Cardiac MR elastography using reduced‐FOV, single‐shot, spin‐echo EPI
title_full Cardiac MR elastography using reduced‐FOV, single‐shot, spin‐echo EPI
title_fullStr Cardiac MR elastography using reduced‐FOV, single‐shot, spin‐echo EPI
title_full_unstemmed Cardiac MR elastography using reduced‐FOV, single‐shot, spin‐echo EPI
title_short Cardiac MR elastography using reduced‐FOV, single‐shot, spin‐echo EPI
title_sort cardiac mr elastography using reduced‐fov, single‐shot, spin‐echo epi
topic Full Papers—Imaging Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5876088/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29194738
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.27029
work_keys_str_mv AT suiyi cardiacmrelastographyusingreducedfovsingleshotspinechoepi
AT arunachalamshivaramp cardiacmrelastographyusingreducedfovsingleshotspinechoepi
AT araniarvin cardiacmrelastographyusingreducedfovsingleshotspinechoepi
AT trzaskojoshuad cardiacmrelastographyusingreducedfovsingleshotspinechoepi
AT youngphillipm cardiacmrelastographyusingreducedfovsingleshotspinechoepi
AT glocknerjamesf cardiacmrelastographyusingreducedfovsingleshotspinechoepi
AT glaserkevinj cardiacmrelastographyusingreducedfovsingleshotspinechoepi
AT lakedavids cardiacmrelastographyusingreducedfovsingleshotspinechoepi
AT mcgeekiaranp cardiacmrelastographyusingreducedfovsingleshotspinechoepi
AT manducaarmando cardiacmrelastographyusingreducedfovsingleshotspinechoepi
AT rossmanphillipj cardiacmrelastographyusingreducedfovsingleshotspinechoepi
AT ehmanrichardl cardiacmrelastographyusingreducedfovsingleshotspinechoepi
AT araozphilipa cardiacmrelastographyusingreducedfovsingleshotspinechoepi