Cargando…

Motion-corrected free-breathing LGE delivers high quality imaging and reduces scan time by half: an independent validation study

Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) sequences have evolved. Free-breathing motion-corrected (MOCO) LGE has potential advantages over breath-held (bh) LGE including minimal user input for the short axis (SAX) stack without breath-holds. It has previously been sho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Captur, Gabriella, Lobascio, Ilaria, Ye, Yang, Culotta, Veronica, Boubertakh, Redha, Xue, Hui, Kellman, Peter, Moon, James C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6773664/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31104178
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-019-01620-x
Descripción
Sumario:Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) sequences have evolved. Free-breathing motion-corrected (MOCO) LGE has potential advantages over breath-held (bh) LGE including minimal user input for the short axis (SAX) stack without breath-holds. It has previously been shown that MOCO-LGE delivers high image quality compared to bh-LGE. We sought to conduct an independent validation study to investigate real-world performance of bh-LGE versus MOCO-LGE in a high-throughput CMR center immediately after the introduction of the MOCO-LGE sequence and with elementary staff induction in its use. Four-hundred consecutive patients, referred for CMR and graded by clinical complexity, underwent CMR on either of two scanners (1.5 T, both Siemens) in a UK tertiary cardiac center. Scar imaging was by bh-LGE or MOCO-LGE (both with phase sensitive inversion recovery). Image quality, scan time, reader confidence and report reproducibility were compared between those scanned by bh-LGE versus MOCO-LGE. Readers had > 3 years CMR experience. Categorical variables were compared by χ(2) or Fisher’s exact tests and continuous variables by unpaired Student’s t-test. Inter-rater agreement of LGE reports was by Cohen’s kappa. Image quality (low score = better) was better for MOCO-LGE (median, interquartile range [Q1–Q3]: 0 [0–0] vs. 2 [0–3], P < 0.0001). This persisted when just clinically complex patients were assessed (0 [0–1] vs. 2 [1–4] P < 0.0001). Readers were more confident in their MOCO-LGE rulings (P < 0.001) and reports more reproducible [bh-LGE vs. MOCO-LGE: kappa 0.76, confidence interval (CI) 0.7–0.9 vs. 0.82, CI 0.7–0.9]. MOCO-LGE significantly shortened LGE acquisition times compared to bh-LGE (for left ventricle SAX stack: 03:22 ± 01:14 vs 06:09 ± 01:47 min respectively, P < 0.0001). In a busy clinical service, immediately after its introduction and with elementary staff training, MOCO-LGE is demonstrably faster to bh-LGE, providing better images that are easier to interpret, even in the sickest of patients.