Key result
A 3D single breath-hold projection reconstruction SSFP MRI method provided comparable cardiac function measurements to standard 2D FT SSFP, with a bias of 0.6% ± 7.7% for LVEF.
Why the study?
Does a 3D single breath-hold PR SSFP MRI method provide comparable cardiac function evaluation to a standard 2D FT SSFP method in volunteers?
Does a 3D single breath-hold PR SSFP MRI method provide comparable cardiac function evaluation to a standard 2D FT SSFP method in volunteers?
A 3D single breath-hold PR SSFP MRI method provides comparable global cardiac function measurements to the standard 2D FT method, significantly reducing the need for multiple breath holds.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports single breath-hold 3D cardiac MRI development; leaves open patient validation and workflow impact.
PURPOSE: To develop and validate a three-dimensional (3D) single breath-hold, projection reconstruction (PR), balanced steady state free precession (SSFP) method for cardiac function evaluation against a two-dimensional (2D) multislice Fourier (Cartesian) transform (FT) SSFP method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 3D PR SSFP sequence used projections in the x-y plane and partitions in z, providing 70-80 msec temporal resolution and 1.7 x 1.7 x 8-10 mm in a 24-heartbeat breath hold. A total of 10 volunteers were imaged with both methods, and the measurements of global cardiac function were compared. RESULTS: Mean signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) for the blood and myocardium were 114 and 42 (2D) and 59 and 21 (3D). Bland-Altman analysis comparing the 2D and 3D ejection fraction (EF), left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV) and end systolic volume (LVESV), and end diastolic myocardial mass (LVEDM) provided values of bias +/-2 SD of 0.6% +/- 7.7 % for LVEF, 5.9 mL +/- 20 mL for LVEDV, -2.8 mL +/- 12 mL for LVESV, and -0.61 g +/- 13 g for LVEDM. 3D interobserver variability was greater than 2D for LVEDM and LVESV. CONCLUSION: In a single breath hold, the 3D PR method provides comparable information to the standard 2D FT method, which employs 10-12 breath holds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peters et al. (2004) studied this question. 3D single breath-hold projection reconstruction (PR) SSFP MRI vs. 2D multislice Fourier transform (FT) SSFP MRI was evaluated on Global cardiac function (LVEF, LVEDV, LVESV, LVEDM). A 3D single breath-hold projection reconstruction SSFP MRI method provided comparable cardiac function measurements to standard 2D FT SSFP, with a bias of 0.6% ± 7.7% for LVEF.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: