Key result
Fiducial marker fitting with a parameter distribution model accurately reconstructed left ventricular deformation, with a mean difference of 0.1 ± 3.2% for circumferential strain compared to MR tagging.
Why the study?
Does fiducial marker fitting with a parameter distribution model accurately estimate left ventricular deformation compared to MR tagging in normal subjects?
Population
13 normal subjects (untagged studies)
Comparison
Estimation of left ventricular deformation using… vs Deformation obtained from MR tagging
Authors
Loading...
Supports feasibility of mesh-based LV motion estimation from 3D images; leaves open clinical validation before diagnostic adoption.
Does fiducial marker fitting with a parameter distribution model accurately estimate left ventricular deformation compared to MR tagging in normal subjects?
Effect estimate: Mean difference 0.1 ± 3.2% (circumferential) and 0.3 ± 3.0% (longitudinal)
Fiducial marker fitting combined with a parameter distribution model provides accurate reconstruction of left ventricular deformation in normal subjects, comparable to MR tagging.
Remme et al. (2005) studied Normal left ventricular function (n=13). Fiducial marker fitting with a parameter distribution model (PDM) vs. MR tagging was evaluated on End systolic (ES) circumferential and longitudinal strain values (Mean difference 0.1 ± 3.2% (circumferential) and 0.3 ± 3.0% (longitudinal)). Fiducial marker fitting with a parameter distribution model accurately reconstructed left ventricular deformation, with a mean difference of 0.1 ± 3.2% for circumferential strain compared to MR tagging.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: