Key result
GRE T1-mapping yields shorter native T1 and ~47% fewer artifacts than SSFP in device patients.
Why the study?
Balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) T1-mapping is susceptible to metallic device-related off-resonance artifacts, whereas gradient echo (GRE) sequences may be less prone to them.
Does GRE-based T1-mapping reduce artifacts and provide comparable lambda values compared to SSFP-based T1-mapping in patients with cardiac devices?
Observational (n=26)
Does GRE-based T1-mapping reduce artifacts and provide comparable lambda values compared to SSFP-based T1-mapping in patients with cardiac devices?
GRE-based T1-mapping yields shorter T1 values but equivalent lambda values with fewer visual artifacts compared to SSFP in patients with cardiac devices.
May reduce artifacts in device patients with preserved λ; leaves open native T1 accuracy versus SSFP.
Background Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is challenging in patients implanted with metallic devices, such as pacemakers or defibrillators, given metallic susceptibility artifacts. The technique of T1-mapping investigates interstitial fibrosis. The most used method for myocardial T1-mapping is the modified Look-Locker Inversion recovery sequence (MOLLI) using balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP). However, SSFP is susceptible to off-resonance artifacts, leading to errors. Gradient echo (GRE) sequences are less prone to these artifacts. Purpose To investigate whether T1-mapping using GRE was comparable to SSFP in this population. Material and Methods Pre/post-contrast T1-mapping was performed on 16 devices utilizing MOLLI with SSFP and GRE strategies at 1.5 T, as well as 10 non-device controls. The difference in mean T1 time by SSFP versus GRE (both pre- and post-contrast for each slice) for device patients was analyzed. Results Native T1 for the device cohort was 1053 ± 94 ms for SSFP and 969 ± 83 ms for GRE. GRE T1 measurements were shorter than SSFP measurements (difference over all slices for SSFP vs. GRE pre-/post-contrast were 74 ms and 27 ms). Mean λ for GRE (devices) was 0.520 ± 0.194 (p = 0.30). λ for SSFP (devices) was 0.536 ± 0.124 ( P = 0.08). There was no difference in λ between SSFP versus GRE in device patients ( P = 0.91). The percentage of segments identified as artifact on T1 maps for device patients was 24% and 45% for GRE and SSFP, respectively. Conclusion Compared to SSFP, T1 values using GRE were consistently shorter, while λ values remained equivalent. There was less visual artifact on GRE images, suggesting advantageous utility over SSFP in patients with cardiac devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garster et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Patients with implanted metallic cardiac devices (n=26). Gradient echo (GRE) T1-mapping vs. Balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) T1-mapping was evaluated on Mean native T1 time. GRE T1-mapping in patients with cardiac devices produced shorter native T1 values than SSFP (969 vs 1053 ms) and equivalent λ values (P=0.91), with fewer visual artifacts (24% vs 45%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: