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?
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aortic strain values from SSFP and PC MRI should not be used interchangeably; leaves open prospective validation in clinical cohorts.
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: