Interstudy reproducibility of SSFP cine magnetic resonance: Impact of magnetic field strength and parallel imaging

Abstract

Purpose:To study the effects of field strength and parallel imaging on image contrast and interstudy reproducibility of right and left ventricular (RV and LV) measurements using steady-state free precession (SSFP) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Materials and Methods:Thirty-two subjects (20 normal, 12 cardiac patients) underwent four SSFP cine short-axis imaging studies: two at 1.5T, one at 3T, and another at 3T with parallel imaging (SENSE). RV and LV contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were compared between methods. Interstudy reproducibility of RV and LV measurements were assessed by Bland-Altman analyses.Results: 3T SENSE imaging reduced total imaging time from 8 Ϯ 2 minutes to 3 Ϯ 1 minute (P Ͻ 0.001). A significant gain in LV CNR was detected between 1.5T and 3T with SENSE (43.8 Ϯ 6.5 vs. 48.4 Ϯ 7.4, P ϭ 0.01), but no significant gain was detected in RV CNR. The reproducibility of LV and RV measurements between two 1.5T studies was not significantly different from the reproducibility between a 1.5T study and a 3T study with SENSE.Conclusion: SENSE imaging at 3T is a reproducible technique for assessing RV and LV structure and function.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance at 3.0T: Current state of the art

“…Comparative analyses of LV function indexes, mass, and volume using cine SSFP has shown no significant difference in values obtained at 3.0T compared to 1.5T [47,48]. Therefore, one can use existing knowledge and experience of MR quantification algorithms for 3.0T imaging.…”

Dynamic Relation of Changes in Weight and Indices of Fat Distribution With Cardiac Structure and Function: The Dallas Heart Study

“…LV mass, LV end‐diastolic volume, LV wall thickness, and LVEF reported here were calculated from short‐axis sequences, where papillary muscles were included in LV mass and excluded from LV volume 26. There was no difference in interstudy reproducibility (test/retest) between the baseline and follow‐up studies done at different field strengths 27. Concentricity was defined as LV mass (g) divided by LV volume (mL).…”

Quantification of left ventricular functional parameter values using 3D spiral bSSFP and through-time Non-Cartesian GRAPPA

“…The unavoidable variations in diaphragm position with each breathhold can lead to slice-dependent shifting of the cardiac anatomy within the imaging volume [3], which has been shown to contribute to inter-examination variability in LV functional parameters [4]. As shown on a more recent 1.5 T MR scanner, reproducibility in patient populations has improved [5], where test-retest studies of ejection fraction and mass have been shown to be more variable for patients with congestive heart failure with respect to other conditions and healthy controls [6]. Furthermore, performing multiple breathholds in quick succession can lead to fatigue [7], especially in patients with poor cardiac and respiratory function, where hyperventilation with room air allowed an average breathhold duration of just 12 s [8].…”