Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of native T1 and extracellular volume fraction between methods

From: Aging and gender effects in native T1 and extracellular volume fraction assessment using SASHA

Study Technique Field Strength n % Female Age (yrs) ECV (%) Gender Effect Age Effect Native T1 (ms) Gender Effect Age Effect
Pagano SASHA 1.5T 44 66 61 ± 10 22 ± 2 No effect No effect 1189 ± 38 Female>Male No effect
Olivetti1 Histology N/A 67 42 63 ± 11 21 ± 4 NR Decreases1, men only2 - - -
Sado3 IR single-shot FLASH EQ-CMR 1.5T 81 48 43 (24-81) 25 ± 4 Female>Male No effect NR NR NR
Neilan4 Cine Look-Locker 3T 32 56 49 ± 15 28 ± 3 No effect Increases NR NR NR
Liu5 MOLLI 1.5T 235 39 65 ± 8 NR No effect No effect NR No effect No effect
Dabir6 MOLLI 1.5T 34 NR NR 25 ± 4 No effect No effect 950 ± 21 No effect No effect
Dabir6 MOLLI 3T 32 NR NR 26 ± 4 No effect No effect 1052 ± 23 No effect No effect
Fontana7 ShMOLLI 1.5T 50 47 47 ± 17 27 ± 3 NR NR NR NR NR
Piechnik8 ShMOLLI 1.5T 342 51 38 ± 15 NR NR NR 962 ± 25 Female>Male Decreases in women
  1. 1-Results adapted from Figure 3; Olivetti, Circ Res. 1991 Jun;68(6):1560-8
  2. 2-Olivetti, J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995 Oct;26(4):1068-79
  3. 3-Sado, Heart. 2012 Oct;98(19):1436-41
  4. 4-Neilan, JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Jun;6(6):672-83
  5. 5-Liu, J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 1;62(14):1280-7
  6. 6-Dabir, J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014 Oct 21;16:69
  7. 7-Fontana, J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012 Dec 28;14:88
  8. 8-Piechnik, J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 Jan 20;15:13
  9. NR = Not Reported