Key result
This review summarizes the methodological aspects of myocardial T1 mapping, including technical and physiological factors influencing results and normal ranges of native T1 and ECV across studies.
This review highlights the methodological, technical, and physiological factors that impact CMR T1 mapping and ECV quantification, which are crucial for translating these techniques into routine clinical use.
T1 mapping variability warrants clinical caution in routine use; leaves open the need for standardized protocols in research.
While an enormous number of studies have documented pathological alterations of the myocardial native longitudinal relaxation time (T1) and the fraction of the extracellular myocardial volume (ECV), it has also become clear that continuously evolving T1 mapping sequence, acquisition and evaluation techniques have a substantial impact on quantitative results, making the translation of reported findings into routine clinical use particularly challenging. To provide a basis for the discussion of pathological myocardial T1 and ECV alterations, the present review aims to summarize the methodological aspects of myocardial T1 mapping along with technical and physiological factors influencing results and normal ranges of myocardial native T1 and ECV reported across studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reiter et al. (2018) conducted a review in Pathological myocardial T1 and ECV alterations. Cardiac magnetic resonance T1 mapping was evaluated. This review summarizes the methodological aspects of myocardial T1 mapping, including technical and physiological factors influencing results and normal ranges of native T1 and ECV across studies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: