Key result
sLASER improves creatine reproducibility over PRESS in 3T CMR spectroscopy despite lower SNR.
Why the study?
Conventional PRESS has chemical shift displacement errors at 3 T, warranting comparison with alternative sLASER and STEAM sequences for reproducible myocardial fatty acid and creatine quantification.
Does sLASER or STEAM provide more reproducible quantification of myocardial fatty acids and creatine compared to PRESS at 3T?
Cross-Sectional (n=10)
No
Does sLASER or STEAM provide more reproducible quantification of myocardial fatty acids and creatine compared to PRESS at 3T?
Effect estimate: r = 0.46
Absolute Event Rate: 0.46% vs 0.35%
p-value: p=0.03
For 3T CMR proton spectroscopy, sLASER offers better reproducibility for quantifying myocardial lipids and creatine compared to PRESS, despite PRESS having higher SNR.
sLASER may enhance reproducibility in 3T myocardial spectroscopy; leaves open optimal sequence selection pending prospective trials.
Single-voxel proton cardiovascular magnetic resonance spectroscopy ( 1 H-CMRS) benefits from 3 T to detect metabolic abnormalities with the quantification of intramyocardial fatty acids (FA) and creatine (Cr). Conventional point resolved spectroscopy (PRESS) sequence remains the preferred choice for CMRS, despite its chemical shift displacement error (CSDE) at high field (≥ 3 T). Alternative candidate sequences are the semi-adiabatic Localization by Adiabatic SElective Refocusing (sLASER) recommended for brain and musculoskeletal applications and the localized stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM). In this study, we aim to compare these three single-voxel 1 H-CMRS techniques: PRESS, sLASER and STEAM for reproducible quantification of myocardial FA and Cr at 3 T. Sequences are compared both using breath-hold (BH) and free-breathing (FB) acquisitions. CMRS accuracy and theoretical CSDE were verified on a purposely-designed fat–water phantom. FA and Cr CMRS data quality and reliability were evaluated in the interventricular septum of 10 healthy subjects, comparing repeated BH and free-breathing with retrospective gating. Measured FA/W ratio deviated from expected phantom ratio due to CSDE with all sequences. sLASER supplied the lowest bias (10%, vs -28% and 27% for PRESS and STEAM). In vivo, PRESS provided the highest signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in FB scans (27.5 for Cr and 103.2 for FA). Nevertheless, a linear regression analysis between the two BH showed a better correlation between myocardial Cr content measured with sLASER compared to PRESS (r = 0.46; p = 0.03 vs. r = 0.35; p = 0.07) and similar slopes of regression lines for FA measurements (r = 0.94; p < 0.001 vs. r = 0.87; p < 0.001). STEAM was unable to perform Cr measurement and was the method with the lowest correlation (r = 0.59; p = 0.07) for FA. No difference was found between measurements done either during BH or FB for Cr, FA and triglycerides using PRESS, sLASER and STEAM. When quantifying myocardial lipids and creatine with CMR proton spectroscopy at 3 T, PRESS provided higher SNR, while sLASER was more reproducible both with single BH and FB scans.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sourdon et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy (n=10). sLASER 1H-CMRS vs. PRESS and STEAM 1H-CMRS was evaluated on Correlation between myocardial creatine content measured in two breath-holds (r = 0.46, p=0.03). When quantifying myocardial lipids and creatine with CMR proton spectroscopy at 3T, PRESS provided higher SNR, while sLASER was more reproducible with better correlation for creatine measurements.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: