Key result
Steady-state free-precession (SSFP) and phase contrast (PC) MR imaging showed good correlation for aortic areas (r=0.99) but lower correlation for aortic strain values (r=0.71).
Why the study?
Does steady-state free-precession (SSFP) MRI improve the accuracy and reproducibility of estimating aortic strain compared to phase contrast (PC) MRI in healthy subjects?
Population
52 healthy subjects and a compliant flow phantom
Comparison
Steady-state free-precession MRI sequence using… vs Phase contrast (PC) MRI sequence
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Aortic strain values from SSFP and PC MRI should not be used interchangeably; leaves open prospective validation in clinical cohorts.
Cross-Sectional (n=52)
Does steady-state free-precession (SSFP) MRI improve the accuracy and reproducibility of estimating aortic strain compared to phase contrast (PC) MRI in healthy subjects?
Effect estimate: r = 0.71
Adding an SSFP sequence to standard PC MRI acquisitions improves the accuracy and reproducibility of estimating aortic strain.
Herment et al. (2010) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy subjects (n=52). Steady-state free-precession (SSFP) MR imaging vs. Phase contrast (PC) MR imaging was evaluated on Correlation of aortic strain values (r = 0.71). Steady-state free-precession (SSFP) and phase contrast (PC) MR imaging showed good correlation for aortic areas (r=0.99) but lower correlation for aortic strain values (r=0.71).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: