Why the study?
To validate free-breathing cine magnetic resonance imaging using compressed-sensing and retrospective motion correction by comparing it with conventional breath-hold cine MR.
Does free-breathing cardiovascular cine MRI using compressed-sensing and retrospective motion correction improve examination time while maintaining image quality and volumetric accuracy compared to breath-hold conventional cine MRI in volunteers?
Does free-breathing cardiovascular cine MRI using compressed-sensing and retrospective motion correction improve examination time while maintaining image quality and volumetric accuracy compared to breath-hold conventional cine MRI in volunteers?
Free-breathing cine MRI with compressed-sensing and motion correction significantly reduces examination time while providing comparable image quality and biventricular volume assessment to conventional breath-hold cine MRI.
May shorten cine MRI times in volunteers; leaves open validation in clinical patients.
PURPOSE: We applied a combination of compressed-sensing (CS) and retrospective motion correction to free-breathing cine magnetic resonance (MR) (FBCS cine MoCo). We validated FBCS cine MoCo by comparing it with breath-hold (BH) conventional cine MR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five volunteers underwent both FBCS cine MoCo and BH conventional cine MR imaging. Twelve consecutive short-axis cine images were obtained. We compared the examination time, image quality and biventricular volumetric assessments between the two cine MR. RESULTS: FBCS cine MoCo required a significantly shorter examination time than BH conventional cine (135 s [110-143 s] vs. 198 s [186-349 s], p < 0.001). The image quality scores were not significantly different between the two techniques (End-diastole: FBCS cine MoCo; 4.7 ± 0.5 vs. BH conventional cine; 4.6 ± 0.6; p = 0.77, End-systole: FBCS cine MoCo; 4.5 ± 0.5 vs. BH conventional cine; 4.5 ± 0.6; p = 0.52). No significant differences were observed in all biventricular volumetric assessments between the two techniques. The mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CI), based on Bland-Altman analysis, were - 0.3 mL (- 8.2 - 7.5 mL) for LVEDV, 0.2 mL (- 5.6 - 5.9 mL) for LVESV, - 0.5 mL (- 6.3 - 5.2 mL) for LVSV, - 0.3% (- 3.5 - 3.0%) for LVEF, - 0.1 g (- 8.5 - 8.3 g) for LVED mass, 1.4 mL (- 15.5 - 18.3 mL) for RVEDV, 2.1 mL (- 11.2 - 15.3 mL) for RVESV, - 0.6 mL (- 9.7 - 8.4 mL) for RVSV, - 1.0% (- 6.5 - 4.6%) for RVEF. CONCLUSION: FBCS cine MoCo can potentially replace multiple BH conventional cine MR and improve the clinical utility of cine MR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takakado et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: