Key result
Contour-based registration yielded lower global myocardial extracellular volume fraction compared to the standard method (25.8% vs 26.8%; P=0.001) and improved image quality.
Why the study?
Myocardial extracellular volume fraction assessment can be affected by technical and subject-related factors, prompting evaluation of contour-based registration and normal segment-based values at 3T.
Does contour-based registration improve image quality and precision of ECV quantification compared to standard methods in healthy volunteers undergoing 3T MRI?
Observational (n=26)
Does contour-based registration improve image quality and precision of ECV quantification compared to standard methods in healthy volunteers undergoing 3T MRI?
Absolute Event Rate: 25.8% vs 26.8%
p-value: p=0.001
Contour-based registration optimizes image quality and improves the precision of myocardial ECV quantification on 3T MRI, particularly when ventricular misregistration occurs.
Contour registration may refine ECV precision amid misregistration; leaves open routine adoption pending patient validation.
Background Myocardial extracellular volume fraction (ECV) assessment can be affected by various technical and subject-related factors. Purpose To evaluate the role of contour-based registration in quantification of ECV and investigate normal segment-based myocardial ECV values at 3T. Material and Methods Pre- and post-contrast T1 mapping images of the left ventricular basal, mid-cavity, and apical slices were obtained in 26 healthy volunteers. ECV maps were generated using motion correction with and without contour-based registration. The image quality of all ECV maps was evaluated by a 4-point scale. Slices were dichotomized according to the occurrence of misregistration in the source data. Contour-registered ECVs and standard ECVs were compared within each subgroup using analysis of variance for repeated measurements and generalized linear mixed models. Results In all three slices, higher quality of ECV maps were found using contour-registered method than using standard method. Standard ECVs were statistically different from contour-registered ECVs in global (26.8% ± 2.8% vs. 25.8% ± 2.4%; P = 0.001), mid-cavity (25.4% ± 3.1% vs. 24.3% ± 2.5%; P = 0.016), and apical slices (28.7% ± 4.1% vs. 27.2% ± 3.4%; P = 0.010). In the misregistration subgroups, contour-registered ECVs were lower with smaller SDs (basal: 25.2% ± 1.8% vs. 26.7% ± 2.6%; P = 0.038; mid-cavity: 24.4% ± 2.3% vs. 26.8% ± 3.1%; P = 0.012; apical: 27.5% ± 3.6% vs. 29.7% ± 4.5%; P = 0.016). Apical (27.2% ± 3.4%) and basal-septal ECVs (25.6% ± 2.6%) were statistically higher than mid-cavity ECV (24.3% ± 2.5%; both P < 0.001). Conclusion Contour-based registration can optimize image quality and improve the precision of ECV quantification in cases demonstrating ventricular misregistration among source images.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Healthy volunteers (n=26). Contour-based registration vs. Standard method (without contour-based registration) was evaluated on Global myocardial extracellular volume fraction (ECV) (p=0.001). Contour-based registration yielded lower global myocardial extracellular volume fraction compared to the standard method (25.8% vs 26.8%; P=0.001) and improved image quality.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: