Key result
Contrast-agent-enhanced coronary magnetic resonance venography significantly improved the contrast-to-noise ratio for the coronary sinus by 347% (P<0.05) compared to non-contrast imaging.
Why the study?
Does the use of an intravascular contrast agent improve the visualization and contrast-to-noise ratio of the coronary venous system in 3D whole-heart CMRV compared to non-contrast imaging?
Observational
Does the use of an intravascular contrast agent improve the visualization and contrast-to-noise ratio of the coronary venous system in 3D whole-heart CMRV compared to non-contrast imaging?
Effect estimate: CNR improvement 347% for CS
p-value: p=<0.05
Intravascular contrast agents significantly improve the contrast-to-noise ratio and delineation of the coronary venous system during 3D whole-heart magnetic resonance venography.
The feasibility of three-dimensional (3D) whole-heart imaging of the coronary venous (CV) system was investigated. The hypothesis that coronary magnetic resonance venography (CMRV) can be improved by using an intravascular contrast agent (CA) was tested. A simplified model of the contrast in T(2)-prepared steady-state free precession (SSFP) imaging was applied to calculate optimal T(2)-preparation durations for the various deoxygenation levels expected in venous blood. Non-contrast-agent (nCA)- and CA-enhanced images were compared for the delineation of the coronary sinus (CS) and its main tributaries. A quantitative analysis of the resulting contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in both approaches was performed. Precontrast visualization of the CV system was limited by the poor CNR between large portions of the venous blood and the surrounding tissue. Postcontrast, a significant increase in CNR between the venous blood and the myocardium (Myo) resulted in a clear delineation of the target vessels. The CNR improvement was 347% (P < 0.05) for the CS, 260% (P < 0.01) for the mid cardiac vein (MCV), and 430% (P < 0.05) for the great cardiac vein (GCV). The improvement in SNR was on average 155%, but was not statistically significant for the CS and the MCV. The signal of the Myo could be significantly reduced to about 25% (P < 0.001).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rasche et al. (2007) conducted an observational in Coronary venous system imaging. Intravascular contrast agent vs. Non-contrast-agent was evaluated on Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (CNR improvement 347% for CS, p=<0.05). Contrast-agent-enhanced coronary magnetic resonance venography significantly improved the contrast-to-noise ratio for the coronary sinus by 347% (P<0.05) compared to non-contrast imaging.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: