Strain-encoded cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a new approach for fast estimation of left ventricular function

Abstract

Background Recently introduced fast strain-encoded (SENC) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging (fast-SENC) provides real-time acquisition of myocardial performance in a single heartbeat. We aimed to test the ability and accuracy of real-time strain-encoded CMR imaging to estimate left ventricular volumes, ejection fraction and mass. Methods Thirty-five subjects (12 healthy volunteers and 23 patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease) were investigated. All study participants were imaged at 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner (Achieva, Philips) using an advanced CMR study protocol which included conventional cine and fast-SENC imaging. A newly developed real-time free-breathing SENC imaging technique based on the acquisition of two images with different frequency modulation was employed. Results All parameters were successfully derived from fast-SENC images with total study time of 105 s (a 15 s scan time and a 90 s post-processing time). There was no significant difference between fast-SENC and cine imaging in the estimation of LV volumes and EF, whereas fast-SENC underestimated LV end-diastolic mass by 7%. Conclusion The single heartbeat fast-SENC technique can be used as a good alternative to cine imaging for the precise calculation of LV volumes and ejection fraction while the technique significantly underestimates LV end-diastolic mass.

A multi-vendor, multi-center study on reproducibility and comparability of fast strain-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging

“…Strain measurements using fSENC have already been shown to be valuable to detect hypertrophic cardiomyopathy when EF is preserved [35], right-ventricular dysfunction due to pulmonary hypertension [36] and diastolic dysfunction in patients with type II diabetes mellitus [37]. Furthermore, fSENC reliably identifies myocardial regions affected by coronary artery disease and infarction [38] and reliably estimates LV-volumes and EF in patients with coronary artery disease, as shown by a recent study from our group [39].…”

Myocardial strain analysis of the right ventricle: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance and echocardiographic techniques

“…Firstly, as mentioned above, the patient’s breathing during image acquisition directly affects RV preload. During SENC-acquisition, breath holds are not necessary and image acquisition time is one heartbeat per view [ 34 , 35 ], whereas for cine-bSSFP- image acquisition breath holds are usually necessary and image acquisition cannot be performed within a single heartbeat [ 35 ]. Secondly, FT is susceptible to artefacts caused by through-plane motion [ 32 ].…”

Comparison of feature tracking, fast‐SENC, and myocardial tagging for global and segmental left ventricular strain

“…Our intra‐observer and inter‐observer comparisons show it to be more robust than TAG and to have comparable inter‐study reproducibility. Furthermore, a recent study by Lapinskas et al demonstrated feasibility of fast‐SENC to assess LV volumes and LVEF, making it a convenient option for functional assessment of the heart. Such short acquisition and post‐processing times make fast‐SENC technique very attractive in daily routine, especially in severely ill patients and children .…”