Key result
FISP cardiovascular MR imaging produced significantly higher left ventricular end-diastolic volumes (+18 mL in healthy subjects, P<0.001) and smaller LV mass compared with FLASH imaging.
Why the study?
Does FISP compared to FLASH imaging yield different left ventricular volume, mass, and function measurements in heart failure patients and healthy subjects?
Observational (n=20)
Does FISP compared to FLASH imaging yield different left ventricular volume, mass, and function measurements in heart failure patients and healthy subjects?
FISP produces small but significantly higher left ventricular volume measurements and smaller mass measurements compared to FLASH imaging, though both have similar reproducibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
LV measurements differ by sequence; leaves open standardization of FISP versus FLASH for consistent CMR quantification.
Moon et al. (2002) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=20). FISP cardiovascular MR imaging vs. FLASH cardiovascular MR imaging was evaluated on Left ventricular volumes, mass, and function. FISP cardiovascular MR imaging produced significantly higher left ventricular end-diastolic volumes (+18 mL in healthy subjects, P<0.001) and smaller LV mass compared with FLASH imaging.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: