Cardiac T2 mapping: robustness and homogeneity of standardized in-line analysis

Abstract

Background and purpose: Interpretation of T2 values remains difficult due to limited comparability across hardware and software systems and the lack of validated measurement recommendations for the number and orientation of mandatory slices. Our aims were to provide a standardized comparison of intra-and inter-individual T2 values in the short and long axes and to investigate inter-scanner reproducibility. Method and materials: Ninety cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) studies in 30 healthy subjects were performed with three identical 1.5 T CMR scanners (same hardware and software) using a balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) gradient echo sequence in three short axis (SAx) and three long axis (LAx) views. A commercially available T2 mapping software package of the latest generation with automatic in-line motion correction was used for acquisition. Regions of interest were manually drawn in each of the 16 myocardial segments according to the American Heart Association (AHA) model in three SAx and three LAx acquisitions. Analysis of inter-scanner, intersegmental, intra-segmental, interregional and inter-level differences was performed. Results: Inter-scanner reproducibility was high and the mean myocardial T2 value for all evaluated segments was 45.7 ± 3.4 ms. Significant inter-segmental variations of mean T2 values were found. Mean intra-segmental T2 values were comparable between LAx and SAx acquisitions in 72%. Significantly higher T2 values were found in apical segments and a significant disparity among different regions was found for SAx and LAx orientations. Conclusion: Standardized cardiac T2 mapping is highly reproducible on identical CMR systems. T2 values vary significantly between single heart segments, regions, levels, and axes in young, healthy subjects.

Global and Regional Test–Retest Reproducibility of Native T1 and T2 Mapping in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging

“…A recent publication of Weissmuller and colleagues investigated the robustness of T2 mapping values in a standardized analysis procedure. 30 Similar image acquisition settings to our study were used and the overall mean T2 value in their investigation (45. The small deviation may be caused by different methods of map analysis (manual regions of interest vs. semi-automated segmentation) or differences in study population (mean age 23 AE 4 years vs. 39 AE 14 years).…”

“…There is limited data on the test-retest reproducibility of T1 and T2 mapping results. Previous investigations largely focused on the reproducibility of global T1 [25][26][27][28] and T2 29,30 relaxation times. Regional differences in reproducibility are important as they can guide the placement of regions of interest for mapping analysis.…”

Assessment of segmental agreement of T2 mapping versus triple inversion recovery in detection of acute myocardial edema

“…Comparison per segment with the routine edema sequences is scarce in literature [33]. T2 mapping was recently used in measuring the area at risk after acute myocardial infarctions and per cutaneous intervention (PCI).…”

Cardiac magnetic resonance in recovering COVID-19 patients. Feature tracking and mapping analysis to detect persistent myocardial involvement

“…CMR can detect chronic myocardial oedema. While black-blood sequences are generally used, these are susceptible to artifacts [14] that may mislead interpretations regarding water/myocardial oedema. T2 mapping, a highly reproducible technique [14] , has been successfully used to quantify oedema, given the higher signal-to-noise ratio, shorter breath-holds, and fewer breathing motion artifacts [15] .…”