Performance of Image-navigated and Diaphragm-navigated 3D Late Gadolinium-enhanced Cardiac MRI for the Assessment of Atrial Fibrosis.

IF 3.8 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
L. Hopman, JA Solís-Lemus, Mark B M Hofman, P. Bhagirath, Sonia Borodzicz-Jazdzyk, Nikki van Pouderoijen, Axel J Krafft, Michaela Schmidt, C.P. Allaart, Steven Niederer, Marco J W Götte
{"title":"Performance of Image-navigated and Diaphragm-navigated 3D Late Gadolinium-enhanced Cardiac MRI for the Assessment of Atrial Fibrosis.","authors":"L. Hopman, JA Solís-Lemus, Mark B M Hofman, P. Bhagirath, Sonia Borodzicz-Jazdzyk, Nikki van Pouderoijen, Axel J Krafft, Michaela Schmidt, C.P. Allaart, Steven Niederer, Marco J W Götte","doi":"10.1148/ryct.230172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose To perform a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the novel image-navigated (iNAV) 3D late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac MRI imaging strategy in comparison with the conventional diaphragm-navigated (dNAV) 3D LGE cardiac MRI strategy for the assessment of left atrial fibrosis in atrial fibrillation (AF). Materials and Methods In this prospective study conducted between April and September 2022, 26 consecutive participants with AF (mean age, 61 ± 11 years; 19 male) underwent both iNAV and dNAV 3D LGE cardiac MRI, with equivalent spatial resolution and timing in the cardiac cycle. Participants were randomized in the acquisition order of iNAV and dNAV. Both, iNAV-LGE and dNAV-LGE images were analyzed qualitatively using a 5-point Likert scale and quantitatively (percentage of atrial fibrosis using image intensity ratio threshold 1.2), including testing for overlap in atrial fibrosis areas by calculating Dice score. Results Acquisition time of iNAV was significantly lower compared with dNAV (4.9 ± 1.1 minutes versus 12 ± 4 minutes, P < .001, respectively). There was no evidence of a difference in image quality for all prespecified criteria between iNAV and dNAV, although dNAV was the preferred image strategy in two-thirds of cases (17/26, 65%). Quantitative assessment demonstrated that mean fibrosis scores were lower for iNAV compared with dNAV (12 ± 8% versus 20 ± 12%, P < .001). Spatial correspondence between the atrial fibrosis maps was modest (Dice similarity coefficient, 0.43 ± 0.15). Conclusion iNAV-LGE acquisition in individuals with AF was more than twice as fast as dNAV acquisition but resulted in a lower atrial fibrosis score. The differences between these two strategies might impact clinical interpretation. ©RSNA, 2024.","PeriodicalId":21168,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/ryct.230172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose To perform a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the novel image-navigated (iNAV) 3D late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac MRI imaging strategy in comparison with the conventional diaphragm-navigated (dNAV) 3D LGE cardiac MRI strategy for the assessment of left atrial fibrosis in atrial fibrillation (AF). Materials and Methods In this prospective study conducted between April and September 2022, 26 consecutive participants with AF (mean age, 61 ± 11 years; 19 male) underwent both iNAV and dNAV 3D LGE cardiac MRI, with equivalent spatial resolution and timing in the cardiac cycle. Participants were randomized in the acquisition order of iNAV and dNAV. Both, iNAV-LGE and dNAV-LGE images were analyzed qualitatively using a 5-point Likert scale and quantitatively (percentage of atrial fibrosis using image intensity ratio threshold 1.2), including testing for overlap in atrial fibrosis areas by calculating Dice score. Results Acquisition time of iNAV was significantly lower compared with dNAV (4.9 ± 1.1 minutes versus 12 ± 4 minutes, P < .001, respectively). There was no evidence of a difference in image quality for all prespecified criteria between iNAV and dNAV, although dNAV was the preferred image strategy in two-thirds of cases (17/26, 65%). Quantitative assessment demonstrated that mean fibrosis scores were lower for iNAV compared with dNAV (12 ± 8% versus 20 ± 12%, P < .001). Spatial correspondence between the atrial fibrosis maps was modest (Dice similarity coefficient, 0.43 ± 0.15). Conclusion iNAV-LGE acquisition in individuals with AF was more than twice as fast as dNAV acquisition but resulted in a lower atrial fibrosis score. The differences between these two strategies might impact clinical interpretation. ©RSNA, 2024.
用于评估心房纤维化的图像导航和膈肌导航三维晚期钆增强心脏磁共振成像的性能。
目的 对新型图像导航(iNAV)三维晚期钆增强(LGE)心脏 MRI 成像策略与传统膈肌导航(dNAV)三维 LGE 心脏 MRI 策略进行定性和定量评估,以评估心房颤动(AF)患者左心房纤维化的情况。材料和方法 在这项于 2022 年 4 月至 9 月进行的前瞻性研究中,26 名连续的房颤患者(平均年龄为 61 ± 11 岁;19 名男性)同时接受了 iNAV 和 dNAV 三维 LGE 心脏 MRI,其空间分辨率和心动周期的时间相当。参试者按 iNAV 和 dNAV 的采集顺序随机分组。iNAV-LGE 和 dNAV-LGE 图像均采用 5 分李克特量表进行定性和定量分析(使用图像强度比阈值 1.2 分析心房纤维化的百分比),包括通过计算 Dice 评分检测心房纤维化区域的重叠情况。结果 iNAV 的采集时间明显低于 dNAV(分别为 4.9 ± 1.1 分钟和 12 ± 4 分钟,P < .001)。尽管三分之二的病例(17/26,65%)首选 dNAV,但没有证据表明 iNAV 和 dNAV 在所有预设标准下的图像质量存在差异。定量评估显示,iNAV 的平均纤维化评分低于 dNAV(12 ± 8% 对 20 ± 12%,P < .001)。心房纤维化图之间的空间对应性一般(Dice 相似性系数,0.43 ± 0.15)。结论 对房颤患者进行 iNAV-LGE 采集的速度是 dNAV 采集速度的两倍多,但获得的心房纤维化评分较低。这两种策略之间的差异可能会影响临床解释。©RSNA,2024。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.40
自引率
1.40%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信