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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |
_version_ | 1783535462744326144 |
---|---|
author | 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. |
author_facet | 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. |
author_sort | Bandettini, W. Patricia |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7232838 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72328382020-05-27 A comparison of cine CMR imaging at 0.55 T and 1.5 T 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. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Research 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. BioMed Central 2020-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7232838/ /pubmed/32423456 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00618-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis 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/. 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 in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research 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. A comparison of cine CMR imaging at 0.55 T and 1.5 T |
title | A comparison of cine CMR imaging at 0.55 T and 1.5 T |
title_full | A comparison of cine CMR imaging at 0.55 T and 1.5 T |
title_fullStr | A comparison of cine CMR imaging at 0.55 T and 1.5 T |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of cine CMR imaging at 0.55 T and 1.5 T |
title_short | A comparison of cine CMR imaging at 0.55 T and 1.5 T |
title_sort | comparison of cine cmr imaging at 0.55 t and 1.5 t |
topic | Research |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bandettiniwpatricia acomparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT shanbhagsujatam acomparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT mancinichristine acomparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT mcguirtdelaneyr acomparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT kellmanpeter acomparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT xuehui acomparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT henryjenniferl acomparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT lowerymargaret acomparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT theinsweelay acomparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT chenmarcusy acomparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT campbellwashburnadriennee acomparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT bandettiniwpatricia comparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT shanbhagsujatam comparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT mancinichristine comparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT mcguirtdelaneyr comparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT kellmanpeter comparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT xuehui comparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT henryjenniferl comparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT lowerymargaret comparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT theinsweelay comparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT chenmarcusy comparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t AT campbellwashburnadriennee comparisonofcinecmrimagingat055tand15t |