Cargando…

A comparison of cine CMR imaging at 0.55 T and 1.5 T

BACKGROUND: There is a renewed interest in lower field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), due to their favorable physical properties, reduced costs, and increased accessibility to patients with implants. We sought to assess the diagnostic capabiliti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bandettini, W. Patricia, Shanbhag, Sujata M., Mancini, Christine, McGuirt, Delaney R., Kellman, Peter, Xue, Hui, Henry, Jennifer L., Lowery, Margaret, Thein, Swee Lay, Chen, Marcus Y., Campbell-Washburn, Adrienne E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7232838/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32423456
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00618-y
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: There is a renewed interest in lower field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), due to their favorable physical properties, reduced costs, and increased accessibility to patients with implants. We sought to assess the diagnostic capabilities of high-performance low-field (0.55 T) CMR imaging for quantification of right and left ventricular volumes and systolic function in both healthy subjects and patients referred for clinical CMR. METHODS: Sixty-five subjects underwent paired exams at 1.5 T using a clinical CMR scanner and using an identical CMR system modified to operate at 0.55 T. Volumetric coverage of the right ventricle (RV) and left ventricles (LV) was obtained using either a breath-held cine balanced steady-state free-precession acquisition or a motion-corrected free-breathing re-binned cine acquisition. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare LV and RV end-systolic volume (ESV), end-diastolic volume (EDV), ejection fraction (EF), and LV mass. Diagnostic confidence was scored on a Likert-type ordinal scale by blinded readers. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in LV and RV EDV between the two scanners (e.g., LVEDV: p = 0.77, bias = 0.40 mL, correlation coefficient = 0.99; RVEDV: p = 0.17, bias = − 1.6 mL, correlation coefficient = 0.98), and regional wall motion abnormality scoring was similar (kappa 0.99). Blood-myocardium contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at 0.55 T was 48 ± 7% of the 1.5 T CNR, and contrast was sufficient for endocardial segmentation in all cases. Diagnostic confidence of images was scored as “good” to “excellent” for the two field strengths in the majority of studies. CONCLUSION: A high-performance 0.55 T system offers good bSSFP CMR image quality, and quantification of biventricular volumes and systolic function that is comparable to 1.5 T in patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03331380, NCT03581318.