Standard breath-hold versus free-breathing real-time cine cardiac MRI-a prospective randomized comparison in patients with known or suspected cardiac disease.

European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice Pub Date : 2025-04-25 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/ehjimp/qyaf042
Mohamed Elshibly, Simran Shergill, Kelly Parke, Charley Budgeon, Rachel England, Ciaran Grafton-Clarke, Fathelrahman Elshibly, Peter Kellman, Gerry P McCann, Jayanth R Arnold
{"title":"Standard breath-hold versus free-breathing real-time cine cardiac MRI-a prospective randomized comparison in patients with known or suspected cardiac disease.","authors":"Mohamed Elshibly, Simran Shergill, Kelly Parke, Charley Budgeon, Rachel England, Ciaran Grafton-Clarke, Fathelrahman Elshibly, Peter Kellman, Gerry P McCann, Jayanth R Arnold","doi":"10.1093/ehjimp/qyaf042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is established as the reference standard for cardiac volumetric assessment. Despite the accuracy and robustness of steady-state free precession (SSFP) cine imaging, its use may prove challenging in patients with arrhythmia and in those who cannot perform repeated breath holds. An alternative solution may be a free-breathing electrocardiogram (ECG)-triggered, retro-gated, real-time cine sequence. This study sought to compare left ventricular volumetric, wall motion, and thickness assessment with both techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>Consecutive patients with known or suspected cardiac disease referred for clinical CMR were studied at 3-Tesla. Participants underwent short-axis standard SSFP and real-time cine imaging in a randomized order within the same scan. Between sequence agreement and mean difference were compared for end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume, ejection fraction (EF), left ventricular mass (LVM), maximal wall thickness (MWT), and wall motion score index (WMSi). Two hundred and two patients (mean age 61 ± 14 years, 51% male and 14% irregular rhythm) were studied. All left ventricular indices showed good-excellent agreement between the two methods [intraclass correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval), EDV 0.96 (0.95-0.97), ESV 0.96 (0.94-0.97), EF 0.85 (0.81-0.88), LVM 0.93 (0.91-0.95), MWT 0.80 (0.75-0.85), and WMSi 0.93 (0.91-0.95)].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients with known or suspected cardiac disease, real-time cine imaging demonstrates good-excellent reproducibility of LV volumetric, wall thickness and resting wall motion assessment when compared with standard SSFP (Trial registration: NCT05221853).</p>","PeriodicalId":94317,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice","volume":"3 1","pages":"qyaf042"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12041914/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjimp/qyaf042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is established as the reference standard for cardiac volumetric assessment. Despite the accuracy and robustness of steady-state free precession (SSFP) cine imaging, its use may prove challenging in patients with arrhythmia and in those who cannot perform repeated breath holds. An alternative solution may be a free-breathing electrocardiogram (ECG)-triggered, retro-gated, real-time cine sequence. This study sought to compare left ventricular volumetric, wall motion, and thickness assessment with both techniques.

Methods and results: Consecutive patients with known or suspected cardiac disease referred for clinical CMR were studied at 3-Tesla. Participants underwent short-axis standard SSFP and real-time cine imaging in a randomized order within the same scan. Between sequence agreement and mean difference were compared for end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume, ejection fraction (EF), left ventricular mass (LVM), maximal wall thickness (MWT), and wall motion score index (WMSi). Two hundred and two patients (mean age 61 ± 14 years, 51% male and 14% irregular rhythm) were studied. All left ventricular indices showed good-excellent agreement between the two methods [intraclass correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval), EDV 0.96 (0.95-0.97), ESV 0.96 (0.94-0.97), EF 0.85 (0.81-0.88), LVM 0.93 (0.91-0.95), MWT 0.80 (0.75-0.85), and WMSi 0.93 (0.91-0.95)].

Conclusion: In patients with known or suspected cardiac disease, real-time cine imaging demonstrates good-excellent reproducibility of LV volumetric, wall thickness and resting wall motion assessment when compared with standard SSFP (Trial registration: NCT05221853).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

标准屏气与自由呼吸实时心脏mri -已知或疑似心脏病患者的前瞻性随机比较
目的:建立心血管磁共振(CMR)作为心脏容量评估的参考标准。尽管稳态自由进动(SSFP)电影成像的准确性和鲁棒性,但其在心律失常患者和不能重复屏气的患者中的应用可能具有挑战性。另一种解决方案可能是自由呼吸心电图(ECG)触发,反向,实时电影序列。本研究试图比较两种技术的左心室容积、壁运动和厚度评估。方法与结果:连续对已知或疑似心脏病患者进行临床CMR研究。参与者在同一扫描中以随机顺序接受短轴标准SSFP和实时电影成像。比较舒张末期容积(EDV)、收缩末期容积(ESV)、卒中容积、射血分数(EF)、左室质量(LVM)、最大壁厚(MWT)和壁运动评分指数(WMSi)的序列一致性和平均差异。242例患者(平均年龄61±14岁,男性占51%,心律失常占14%)。两种方法的左室指数均表现出良好的一致性[类内相关系数(95%置信区间),EDV 0.96 (0.95-0.97), ESV 0.96 (0.94-0.97), EF 0.85 (0.81-0.88), LVM 0.93 (0.91-0.95), MWT 0.80 (0.75-0.85), WMSi 0.93(0.91-0.95)]。结论:在已知或疑似心脏病的患者中,与标准SSFP相比,实时电影成像在左室容积、壁厚和静息壁运动评估方面具有良好的再现性(试验注册号:NCT05221853)。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信