Comparison of left and right ventricular dimensions, systolic and diastolic function between 1.0T Open MRI and 1.5T cylindrical MRI
© Petry et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Published: 1 February 2012
Cardiac MRI is the reference standard for cardiac morphology and functional assessment of left and right ventricular (LV,RV) end-diastolic and -systolic volumes (EDV, ESV), stroke volume (SV), ejection fraction (EF) and myocardial mass (Mass) due to its high image resolution tissue differentiation. Because of its cylindrical shape and resulting spatial restrictions, a significant amount of obese and claustrophobic patients, at least 10-15%, cannot be studied at all or only with higher amounts of sedation. Recently, 1.0T open MRI, which offers more space due to its different magnet architecture, has been introduced mainly for orthopaedic purposes but until now has rarely been used for cardiovascular functional measurements.
We sought to investigate the performance of 1.0T open MRI for cardiovascular function and to compare LV- and RV-EDV, -ESV, -SV, -EF, longitudinal RV and LV function and Mass for both 1.0 and 1.5T.
Eight volunteers (all male, 27±3ys) were scanned twice within 1.5hours randomly both on the 1.5T (Philips 1.5T Achieva) and the 1.0T (Philips 1.0T Panorama high field open). 1.5T and 1.0T cine SSFP (1.5T:TR/TE=3.5/min,Flip-angle=40°, resolution:1.7*1.8*8mm,slice-thickness=8mm,30heart-phases; HFO 1.0T:TR/TE: 4.7/2.2 msec,flip-angle:70°,resolution:1.8×2×8mm3,slice-thickness=8mm, 30 heart phases) were performed to assess LV- and RV-EDV, -ESV, -SV, -EF and Mass. Mitral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSE) and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) where measured comparable to echocardiography. All images were compared by two blinded observers on a workstation (Philips Viewforum). P<0.05 was regarded statistically significant.
Measurement of global and longitudinal LV- and RV-function was comparable for 1.5T and 1.0T open. There was a tendency for slightly lower EDV and ESV but higher Mass values at 1.5T, but failed to reach statistical significance. Whether these results are due to the small differences in temporal and spatial resolution at 1.0T or potentially due to the small sample size in these initial experiments warrants further investigation. 1.0T could be a valid clinical alternative for a cardiac MRI assessment in patients with obesity and claustrophobia.
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.