Key result
Fast-SENC cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provided similar estimates of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes compared to conventional cine imaging, but significantly underestimated left ventricular end-diastolic mass by 7%.
Why the study?
Fast strain-encoded CMR imaging provides real-time single-heartbeat acquisition of myocardial performance, but its ability and accuracy to estimate LV volumes, ejection fraction, and mass required testing.
Does fast-SENC CMR imaging accurately estimate left ventricular volumes, ejection fraction, and mass compared to conventional cine imaging in healthy volunteers and CAD patients?
Comparison
Real-time free-breathing fast-SENC vs conventional cine CMR imaging
Design
Diagnostic imaging comparison study
Authors
Loading...
Supports faster LV function assessment via fast-SENC CMR; leaves open mass accuracy before routine adoption.
Observational (n=35)
No
Does fast-SENC CMR imaging accurately estimate left ventricular volumes, ejection fraction, and mass compared to conventional cine imaging in healthy volunteers and CAD patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 54.71% vs 55.69%
p-value: p=0.374
Fast-SENC CMR imaging provides a rapid, single-heartbeat alternative to conventional cine imaging for accurate estimation of LV volumes and ejection fraction, though it slightly underestimates LV mass.
Lapinskas et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=35). Fast strain-encoded (SENC) cardiac magnetic resonance imaging vs. Conventional cine cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p=0.374). Fast-SENC cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provided similar estimates of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes compared to conventional cine imaging, but significantly underestimated left ventricular end-diastolic mass by 7%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: