- Poster presentation
- Open Access
Accuracy of single breath-hold cine MRI analyzed by guide-point modeling for the assessment of Left Ventricular Function
© Heilmaier et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009
- Published: 28 January 2009
- Steady State Free Precession
- Short Axis View
- Volumetric Measurement
- Statistical Spread
- Steady State Free Precession Sequence
To prospectively assess the performance of highly accelerated cine MRI in multi-orientations combined with a new guide-point modeling post-processing technique (GPM-approach) for the assessment of left ventricular (LV) function compared to the standard summation of slices method based on a stack of short axis views (SoS-approach).
33 consecutive patients with sinus rhythm were examined on a 1.5 T scanner with a standard steady state free precession (SSFP) sequence („trueFISP“, TR: 3.0 ms, TE: 1.5 ms, flip angle FA: 60°, matrix: 192 × 156, temporal resolution: 36 ms; acceleration factor AF = 2) in inspiratory breath-hold. End-diastolic volumes (EDV), end-systolic volumes (ESV) and ejection fractions (EF) were calculated from the standard stack of short axis using commercially available software (syngo ArgusVF, version VA80A; SiemensAG Healthcare Sector, Erlangen, Germany). Additionally, 2 long- and 3 short-axis views were measured using a highly accelerated, single breath-hold temporal parallel acquisition SSFP sequence (TPAT; TR: 4.6 ms, TE: 1.1 ms, matrix: 192 × 133, temporal resolution: 40 ms, AF = 3). This data set was analyzed by means of recently implemented software (syngo Argus 4 DVF, version VA80A; Siemens Healthcare Sector, Erlangen, Germany), which builds up a 4-dimensional (4D) model of the left ventricle and allows visualization of the model superimposed to anatomical images as references (guide-point modeling; GPM). In each patient volumetric measurements were performed twice by two independent readers (25 respectively more than 5000 volumetric measurements performed before study was started) using either the stack of short axis approach analyzed with the SoS method or the highly accelerated multi-orientation protocol combined with the GPM technique. For both sequences and post-processing techniques an intra- and interindividual comparison was performed by applying the Bland-Altman approach.
Mean acquisition and post-processing time was significantly shorter with the GPM-approach (15 seconds/3 minutes versus 360 seconds/6 minutes) when compared to the SoS-method.
Mean EDV, ESV and EF values ± SD and ranges as determined by reader 1 and 2 with the SoS and GPM approach, respectively
Stack of short axis views + SoS
Multi-orientation sequences + GPM
53.3% ± 13.5% (range 15–73%)
52.8% ± 13.1% (range 15–71%)
52.8% ± 12.5% (range 16–72%)
53.2% ± 12.6% (range 16–72%)
148.1 ml ± 57.2 ml (range 85–352 ml)
163.8 ml ± 64.5 ml (range 93–409 ml)
147.4 ml ± 55.0 ml (range 79–331 ml)
165.5 ml ± 63.0 ml (range 98–392 ml)
75.4 ml ± 58.0 ml (range 23–299 ml)
84.8 ml ± 66.2 ml (range 28–335 ml)
75.5 ml ± 54.3 ml (range 22–274 ml)
84.1 ml ± 63.0 ml (range 28–321 ml)
As with the EDV mean ESV values were higher with the highly accelerated multi-orientation protocol post-processed with the GPM approach for both readers (reader 1, 10.5 ± 10.2 ml; reader 2, 8.8 ± 9.7 ml) and showed less statistical spread in comparison to the stack of short axis views analyzed with the SoS technique (mean difference 6.3 ± 5.0 ml versus 4.3 ± 3.7 ml).
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd.