Key result
Apical passive driver placement yields ~6-kPa lower myocardial stiffness estimates than lateral chest placement.
Why the study?
Passive driver position is a critical yet underexplored determinant of measurement quality in 3.0 T cardiac magnetic resonance elastography.
Does passive driver placement at the apical surface projection improve image consistency and reproducibility of left ventricular myocardial stiffness measurements in 3.0T cardiac magnetic resonance elastography compared to the left lateral chest wall?
Cross-Sectional (n=23)
Single-blind
No
Does passive driver placement at the apical surface projection improve image consistency and reproducibility of left ventricular myocardial stiffness measurements in 3.0T cardiac magnetic resonance elastography compared to the left lateral chest wall?
Mean Difference: -5.8 (95% CI -7.2–-4.3)
Absolute Event Rate: 9% vs 14.7%
p-value: p=<0.001
Passive driver placement at the apical surface projection during 3.0T cardiac magnetic resonance elastography yields higher wave quality and superior observer reproducibility compared with left chest wall placement.
Background Cardiac magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is a non-invasive technique that quantifies myocardial stiffness by tracking shear wave propagation through the heart. Shear waves are generated externally and delivered to the thorax through a passive driver placed on the chest. Passive driver position is a critical yet underexplored determinant of measurement quality. Purpose To compare two passive driver positions in 3.0 T cardiac MRE — the apical surface projection (ASP) and the left lateral chest wall (LCW) — and to determine which yields more reliable left ventricular (LV) myocardial stiffness measurements. Methods Twenty-three healthy volunteers (mean age 43.0 ± 17.0 years; 14 men, 9 women) underwent two cardiac MRE acquisitions, with the passive driver placed first at the ASP and then at the LCW. LV myocardial stiffness and the octahedral shear strain signal-to-noise ratio (OSS-SNR) were measured at both positions. Differences between positions were analyzed using paired t-tests with Cohen's d . Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland–Altman analysis. Results Myocardial stiffness was significantly lower at the ASP than at the LCW (9.0 ± 1.7 kPa vs. 14.7 ± 3.0 kPa; mean difference −5.8 kPa, 95% CI −7.2 to −4.3; P < 0.001 ; Cohen's d = − 1.73 ). OSS-SNR was significantly higher at the ASP (1.72 ± 0.48 vs. 1.25 ± 0.29; P < 0.001 ; Cohen's d = 0.85 ). At the ASP, stiffness measurements demonstrated excellent intra- and inter-observer agreement, with ICCs of 0.962 and 0.963, respectively. At the LCW, stiffness measurements demonstrated good inter-observer agreement and excellent intra-observer agreement, with ICCs of 0.839 and 0.914, respectively. Conclusion Passive driver placement at the ASP resulted in significantly higher OSS-SNR and superior reproducibility for LV myocardial stiffness measurements compared with LCW placement. Therefore, the ASP should be considered the preferred driver position for cardiac MRE in clinical and research settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy volunteers (Cardiac magnetic resonance elastography) (n=23). Passive driver placement at the apical surface projection (ASP) vs. Passive driver placement at the left lateral chest wall (LCW) was evaluated on Left ventricular myocardial stiffness (Mean difference -5.8 kPa, 95% CI -7.2 to -4.3, p=<0.001). Passive driver placement at the apical surface projection yielded significantly lower myocardial stiffness estimates (mean difference -5.8 kPa) than left lateral chest wall placement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: