Fully Automated Plane Prescription in Cardiac MRI : A Prospective Cohort Study

Background Accurate plane positioning is important for high‐quality cardiac MRI images but requires specialized training, limiting accessibility. Purpose To evaluate an automated plane positioning tool and compare it with manual planning. Study Type Prospective. Population Fifty‐seven healthy volunteers (28 males; median age 42 years) and 20 consecutive patients (15 males; median age 61 years) scheduled for clinical cardiac MRI. Field Strength/Sequence Steady state free precession cine sequence at 1.5 T. Assessment In volunteers, short‐axis (SAX), 2‐chamber (2CH), 3‐chamber (3CH), and 4‐chamber (4CH) cine images were acquired using both automated and manual prescription. Two blinded radiologists (5 and 6 years of clinical cardiac MRI experience) rated plane quality on a Likert scale (1 = nondiagnostic to 5 = excellent ). Mean plane angle differences between manual and automated prescriptions were calculated. Left and right ventricular end‐systolic volume (ESV), end‐diastolic volume (EDV), stroke volume (SV), and ejection fraction (EF) were compared. In patients, the number of required manual corrections to automated prescriptions was recorded. Statistical Analysis Wilcoxon matched‐pairs signed rank tests and Bland–Altman analyses, significance level at p ≤ 0.05. Results Automated plane positioning was successful in all volunteers. Image plane quality did not differ significantly between automated (mean score 4.64) and manual prescription (4.62, p = 0.812). Mean angle differences were 6.7° ± 4.3° (SAX), 10.3° ± 5.8° (2CH), 8.9° ± 5.1° (3CH), and 8.0° ± 4.8° (4CH). Volumetric parameters showed no significant differences between both planning methods with mean biases being −0.5 mL, p = 0.305 (LVEDV), 0.5 mL, p = 0.683 (LVESV), −1.0 mL, p = 0.168 (LVSV) and 0.4%, and p = 0.215 (LVEF). In patients, 8.8% (7/80) of automatically prescribed planes required minor corrections; 91.2% (73/80) were accepted without adjustments. Data Conclusion Automated plane positioning for cardiac MRI may provide high‐quality images and accurate volumetric assessment comparable to manual planning. Evidence Level 2. Technical Efficacy Stage 2.