Key result
Image-based B0 shimming at 3.0T yielded similar mean T2 values to volume shimming (39.4 vs 39.1 msec; P>0.05) but reduced regional heterogeneity in T2 mapping.
Why the study?
Does image-based B0 shimming improve regional homogeneity of myocardial T2 and T2 mapping at 3.0T compared to volume shimming in volunteers and AMI patients?
Cross-Sectional (n=21)
Does image-based B0 shimming improve regional homogeneity of myocardial T2 and T2 mapping at 3.0T compared to volume shimming in volunteers and AMI patients?
Image-based B0 shimming reduces regional heterogeneity in myocardial T2 mapping at 3.0T compared to conventional volume shimming.
Image-based B0 shimming may reduce T2 heterogeneity at 3T; leaves open whether it improves diagnostic performance in myocardial mapping.
PURPOSE: Intramyocardial hemorrhage and area at risk are both prognostic markers in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Myocardial T2 and T2 * mapping have been used to detect such tissue changes at 1.5T but these techniques are challenging at 3.0T due to additional susceptibility variation. We studied T2 and T2 * myocardial mapping techniques at 3.0T on a system employing B1 shimming and compared two different methods of B0 shimming. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen volunteers and six AMI patients were scanned on a 3T system. Volume and image-based (IB) B0 shimming techniques were implemented. Single breath-hold, multiecho gradient, and spin echo sequences were employed from which T2 * and T2 maps were calculated. RESULTS: In volunteers, there was no significant difference in mean values obtained with volume or IB shimming for T2 mapping (39.1 ± 6.0 msec vs. 39.4 ± 6.1 msec; P > 0.05) or for T2 * mapping (24.2 ± 6.7 msec vs. 24.1 ± 5.2 msec; P > 0.05). There were no significant regional differences in mean T2 values between septal, anterior, and posterior segments with either shimming technique (all P > 0.05); but there were significant regional differences in mean T2 * values using volume shimming (27.8 ± 5.2 msec vs. 28.4 ± 5.8 msec vs. 15.9 ± 8.3 msec; P < 0.05)-but not with IB shimming (25.7 ± 5.4 msec vs. 25.3 ± 5.9 msec vs. 18.7 ± 4.6 msec; P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: At 3.0T, cardiac T2 mapping is robust. Although T2 * mapping is prone to more regional heterogeneity this can be reduced by using IB instead of conventional volume B0 shimming.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zaman et al. (2014) conducted a cross-sectional in Acute myocardial infarction (n=21). Image-based B0 shimming vs. Volume B0 shimming was evaluated on Mean T2 mapping values in volunteers (p=> 0.05). Image-based B0 shimming at 3.0T yielded similar mean T2 values to volume shimming (39.4 vs 39.1 msec; P>0.05) but reduced regional heterogeneity in T2 mapping.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: