Key result
Radial and Spiral SENC MRI acquisitions showed good agreement with standard Cartesian acquisition for measuring myocardial strain, with mean differences of 0.42±2.46% and -0.25±1.76%, respectively.
Why the study?
Do Radial and Spiral acquisition strategies in SENC MRI provide comparable myocardial strain measurements to standard Cartesian acquisition?
Observational (n=3)
No
Do Radial and Spiral acquisition strategies in SENC MRI provide comparable myocardial strain measurements to standard Cartesian acquisition?
Effect estimate: 0.42±2.46% (Radial-Cartesian) and -0.25±1.76% (Spiral-Cartesian)
Radial and Spiral acquisition strategies for SENC MRI provide comparable strain measurements to Cartesian acquisition, with Spiral offering superior spatial resolution for the same scan time.
May enable faster or higher-resolution strain mapping in CMR; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Strain-encoding (SENC) MRI was recently introduced for measuring strain with high-resolution and simple post-processing(1). Figure- 1 shows SENC pulse sequence. In typical SENC sequence, k-space data is acquired line-by-line in rectilinear fashion, which results in long scan-time and renders the technique impractical for many applications. Nevertheless, fast imaging techniques, e.g. Radial or Spiral acquisition, allow for reducing scan time while maintaining adequate image quality. In this work, Radial and Spiral acquisitions were implemented in SENC for improved performance. The developed sequences were tested on volunteers and the results were evaluated and compared to standard Cartesian acquisition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ibrahim et al. (2011) reported an observational. Radial and Spiral SENC MRI acquisitions vs. Standard Cartesian SENC MRI acquisition was evaluated on Circumferential strain difference (0.42±2.46% (Radial-Cartesian) and -0.25±1.76% (Spiral-Cartesian)). Radial and Spiral SENC MRI acquisitions showed good agreement with standard Cartesian acquisition for measuring myocardial strain, with mean differences of 0.42±2.46% and -0.25±1.76%, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: