Comparison of left ventricular function assessment using phonocardiogram- and electrocardiogram-triggered 2D SSFP CINE MR imaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T

Tools

Item Type:	Article
Title:	Comparison of left ventricular function assessment using phonocardiogram- and electrocardiogram-triggered 2D SSFP CINE MR imaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T
Creators Name:	Becker, M., Frauenrath, T., Hezel, F., Krombach, G.A., Kremer, U., Koppers, B., Butenweg, C., Goemmel, A., Utting, J.F., Schulz-Menger, J. and Niendorf, T.
Abstract:	OBJECTIVE: As high-field cardiac MRI (CMR) becomes more widespread the propensity of ECG to interference from electromagnetic fields (EMF) and to magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) effects increases and with it the motivation for a CMR triggering alternative. This study explores the suitability of acoustic cardiac triggering (ACT) for left ventricular (LV) function assessment in healthy subjects (n = 14). METHODS: Quantitative analysis of 2D CINE steady-state free precession (SSFP) images was conducted to compare ACT's performance with vector ECG (VCG). Endocardial border sharpness (EBS) was examined paralleled by quantitative LV function assessment. RESULTS: Unlike VCG, ACT provided signal traces free of interference from EMF or MHD effects. In the case of correct R-wave recognition, VCG-triggered 2D CINE SSFP was immune to cardiac motion effects-even at 3.0 T. However, VCG-triggered 2D SSFP CINE imaging was prone to cardiac motion and EBS degradation if R-wave misregistration occurred. ACT-triggered acquisitions yielded LV parameters (end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), ejection fraction (EF) and left ventricular mass (LVM)) comparable with those derived from VCG-triggered acquisitions (1.5 T: ESV(VCG) = (56 +/- 17) ml, EDV(VCG) = (151 +/- 32) ml, LVM(VCG) = (97 +/- 27) g, SV(VCG) = (94 +/- 19) ml, EF(VCG) = (63 +/- 5)% cf. ESV(ACT) = (56 +/- 18) ml, EDV(ACT) = (147 +/- 36) ml, LVM(ACT) = (102 +/- 29) g, SV(ACT) = (91 +/- 22) ml, EF(ACT) = (62 +/- 6)%; 3.0 T: ESV(VCG) = (55 +/- 21) ml, EDV(VCG) = (151 +/- 32) ml, LVM(VCG) = (101 +/- 27) g, SV(VCG) = (96 +/- 15) ml, EF(VCG) = (65 +/- 7)% cf. ESV(ACT) = (54 +/- 20) ml, EDV(ACT) = (146 +/- 35) ml, LVM(ACT) = (101 +/- 30) g, SV(ACT) = (92 +/- 17) ml, EF(ACT) = (64 +/- 6)%). CONCLUSIONS: ACT's intrinsic insensitivity to interference from electromagnetic fields renders it suitable for clinical CMR.
Keywords:	Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), MR-Stethoscope, Magnetic Field Strength, Left Ventricular Function, Cardiovascular MRI, Physiological Triggering
Source:	European Radiology
ISSN:	0938-7994
Publisher:	Springer
Volume:	20
Number:	6
Page Range:	1344-1355
Date:	June 2010
Official Publication:	https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1676-z
PubMed:	View item in PubMed

Repository Staff Only: item control page