Key result
MR ejection fraction measurements based on contiguous 1-cm multi-slice summation were most accurate (average relative errors 3.2% to 6.0%), while area-length algorithms had errors up to 59%.
Why the study?
Which magnetic resonance imaging measurement method provides the most accurate cardiac ejection fraction in a phantom model?
Which magnetic resonance imaging measurement method provides the most accurate cardiac ejection fraction in a phantom model?
Multi-slice summation using contiguous 1-cm sections is the most accurate MRI method for measuring ejection fraction, though skipping every other slice halves acquisition and processing time with only a slight decrease in accuracy.
Phantom validation favors contiguous multi-slice MR for EF accuracy; leaves open in vivo human translation.
The accuracy of cardiac ejection fraction (EF) measurements with thin, contiguous cine-magnetic resonance imaging (MR) sections is well established. Still, faster imaging and measurement techniques would be desirable. The authors evaluated the accuracy of four different MR EF measurements methods in a biventricular, anthropomorphic, foam-latex rubber phantom which was connected via noncompliant fluid-filled tubing to a pulsatile flow pump. Nine contiguous 10 mm cine-MR sections (TR/TE, 25/13; flip angle, 45 degrees) were obtained through the heart in long and short cardiac axes at 16 frames per cardiac cycle at a pump rate of 60 beats/minute. EF measurements were based on either the multi-slice summation technique (nine contiguous 10-mm sections versus four 10-mm sections spaced 10 mm apart) or the area-length method (single largest long section versus combination of largest long- and short-axis section). Three replications were performed for each of the tested EFs (40.8%, 29.4%, and 13.4%), which were compared with actual EFs. EF measurements based on contiguous 1-cm sections correlated best with the actual EFs. Average relative errors ranged from 3.2% to 6.0%. EF measurements based on every other section were less accurate; average relative errors were between 5.2% and 10.2%. Single and biplane area-length algorithm EF measurements were significantly less accurate; average relative errors were as high as 59%. EF measurements based on multi-slice summation are more accurate than those based on the area-length algorithm. Contiguous 1-cm section acquisitions are most accurate and most time consuming. With slight decrease of accuracy, acquisition and processing times can be halved by skipping every other slice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DEBATIN et al. (1992) studied this question. Multi-slice summation technique (contiguous 1-cm sections) vs. Multi-slice summation (every other section) and area-length methods was evaluated on Accuracy of EF measurements compared with actual EFs (average relative error). MR ejection fraction measurements based on contiguous 1-cm multi-slice summation were most accurate (average relative errors 3.2% to 6.0%), while area-length algorithms had errors up to 59%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: