Temporal phase contrast imaging systematically underestimated peak filling rate by a mean difference of -54.3 mL/s compared to steady-state free precession imaging, though the methods correlated well.
Cross-Sectional (n=10)
No
Does phase contrast CMR imaging accurately measure left ventricular peak filling rate compared to steady-state free precession CMR in healthy adults?
Phase contrast CMR imaging with high temporal resolution is a convenient and repeatable method for measuring left ventricular peak filling rate, offering an acceptable alternative to SSFP for evaluating diastolic function.
Mean Difference: -54.3 (95% CI -81.3–-26.7)
Absolute Event Rate: 413.1% vs 467.3%
BACKGROUND: We investigated a practical method to measure peak filling rate (PFR) as an indicator of diastolic function of the left ventricle. Ten adult volunteers underwent cine MR imaging using steady-state free precession (SSFP) and phase contrast (PC) sequences to measure PFR. Two PC image sets were acquired at the mitral valve orifice, and PFR was determined from the set with high true temporal resolution (temporal PC method) or with high spatial resolution (spatial PC method). SSFP images covering the left ventricle were acquired, and a time-volume curve was generated around the peak filling phase. PFR was determined using parabolic curve fitting on the first-derivative curve of the LV time-volume curve. FINDINGS: PFR values estimated by the PC methods correlated well with those estimated by the SSFP method, despite apparent underestimation. The underestimation was smaller for the temporal PC method (12 %) than for the spatial PC method (28 %). Intra- and inter-observer repeatabilities were better for the PC methods than for the SSFP method. CONCLUSIONS: PFR measurement by PC imaging with high true temporal resolution is convenient and offers excellent repeatability and acceptable accuracy, indicating suitability for clinical use.
Komi et al. (Mon,) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy volunteers (n=10). Phase contrast (PC) cine CMR imaging vs. Steady-state free precession (SSFP) cine CMR imaging was evaluated on Peak filling rate (PFR) difference between temporal PC and SSFP methods (MD -54.3, 95% CI -81.3 to -26.7). Temporal phase contrast imaging systematically underestimated peak filling rate by a mean difference of -54.3 mL/s compared to steady-state free precession imaging, though the methods correlated well.