Cargando…

The comparison of diffusion tensor imaging in human hearts between 1.5 T and 3.0 T

BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare the diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) indices derived from human hearts between 1.5 T and 3.0 T scanners. Additionally, the reproducibility of DTI indices was assessed between 1.5 T and 3.0 T scanners. METHODS: A total of 18 ex-vivo hearts were derived from patients w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Xiaodan, Chen, Rui, Xu, Xi, Xiao, Zebin, Wei, Xiaoyu, Yang, Yuelong, Zhang, Zhongping, Wu, Zhigang, Zhu, Yanjie, Liu, Hui
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9875455/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36698134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-023-00969-9
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare the diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) indices derived from human hearts between 1.5 T and 3.0 T scanners. Additionally, the reproducibility of DTI indices was assessed between 1.5 T and 3.0 T scanners. METHODS: A total of 18 ex-vivo hearts were derived from patients who underwent heart transplantation. The DTI schemes were performed at 1.5 T and 3.0 T, respectively. Then, the same slices from each ex-vivo heart were selected for image analysis. The student’s t-test or Wilcoxon-rank test was used to compare the statistical differences. The agreement of DTI indices was mainly reported as the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: No significant differences (all P > 0.05) were found in the DTI indices between 1.5 T and 3.0 T scanners. Interestingly, the ICC of all DTI indices was relatively lower with a low b-value. The reproducibility of the helix angle (HA) was relatively lower when compared to the other DTI indices. CONCLUSION: The DTI indices of ex-vivo human hearts between 1.5 T and 3.0 T scanners had no significant differences. The consistency of DTI indices needed caution using a low b-value with different field strengths, and the relatively low reproducibility of HA should be considered. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12880-023-00969-9.