Key result
Short-axis LV strain shows high agreement between 1.5 T and 3 T cardiac MRI.
Why the study?
Left ventricular strain measurements can be derived from routinely acquired bSSFP cine cardiac MRI, but the interfield strength agreement of these measurements between 1.5 T and 3 T needed comparison.
Does cardiac MRI at 3 T compared to 1.5 T provide agreeable left ventricular strain measurements in healthy individuals?
Cross-Sectional (n=22)
Observers blinded
Randomized order
No
Does cardiac MRI at 3 T compared to 1.5 T provide agreeable left ventricular strain measurements in healthy individuals?
Short-axis derived LV strain measurements and AI-based global longitudinal shortening show good to excellent agreement between 1.5 T and 3 T cardiac MRI, supporting their reliable use across different field strengths.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Short-axis LV strain measurements may be interchangeable across field strengths in healthy subjects; leaves open validation in patients and for long-axis techniques.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) strain measurements can be derived using cardiac MRI from routinely acquired balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) cine images. PURPOSE: To compare the interfield strength agreement of global systolic strain, peak strain rates and artificial intelligence (AI) landmark-based global longitudinal shortening at 1.5 T and 3 T. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: A total of 22 healthy individuals (mean age 36 ± 12 years; 45% male) completed two cardiac MRI scans at 1.5 T and 3 T in a randomized order within 30 minutes. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: bSSFP cine images at 1.5 T and 3 T. ASSESSMENT: Two software packages, Tissue Tracking (cvi42, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging) and QStrain (Medis Suite, Medis Medical Imaging Systems), were used to derive LV global systolic strain in the longitudinal, circumferential and radial directions and peak (systolic, early diastolic, and late diastolic) strain rates. Global longitudinal shortening and mitral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSE) were measured using an AI deep neural network model. STATISTICAL TESTS: Comparisons between field strengths were performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test (P value < 0.05 considered statistically significant). Agreement was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Minimal bias was seen in all strain and strain rate measurements between field strengths. Using Tissue Tracking, strain and strain rate values derived from long-axis images showed poor to fair agreement (ICC range 0.39-0.71), whereas global longitudinal shortening and MAPSE showed good agreement (ICC = 0.81 and 0.80, respectively). Measures derived from short-axis images showed good to excellent agreement (ICC range 0.78-0.91). Similar results for the agreement of strain and strain rate measurements were observed with QStrain. CONCLUSION: The interfield strength agreement of short-axis derived LV strain and strain rate measurements at 1.5 T and 3 T was better than those derived from long-axis images; however, the agreement of global longitudinal shortening and MAPSE was good. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ayton et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy individuals (n=22). Cardiac MRI at 3 T vs. Cardiac MRI at 1.5 T was evaluated on Interfield strength agreement of short-axis derived LV strain and strain rate measurements (ICC 0.78-0.91). Short-axis derived left ventricular strain and strain rate measurements showed good to excellent agreement between 1.5 T and 3 T cardiac MRI (ICC range 0.78-0.91), whereas long-axis derived measurements showed poor to fair agreement.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: