Velocity encoded mitral valve inflow cine: A novel and more reproducible method to determine cardiac rest periods during coronary magnetic resonance angiography
R. Markus, A. Tandon, Munes Fares, J. Dillenbeck, G. Greil, M. Batsis, Joshua S. Greer, A. Potersnak, Song Zhang, T. Hussain, S. Avula
{"title":"Velocity encoded mitral valve inflow cine: A novel and more reproducible method to determine cardiac rest periods during coronary magnetic resonance angiography","authors":"R. Markus, A. Tandon, Munes Fares, J. Dillenbeck, G. Greil, M. Batsis, Joshua S. Greer, A. Potersnak, Song Zhang, T. Hussain, S. Avula","doi":"10.1177/20480040221087556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A high temporal resolution, 4-chamber (4CH) cine is the standard method for determining cardiac rest periods during whole heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA). We evaluated the image quality and reproducibility between the 4CH cine method and a novel approach using a velocity encoded mitral valve inflow cine (MVI). The goal of this study was to compare the quality of CMRAs utilizing MVI versus 4CH methods. Sharpness and vessel length for the LCA and RCA using each method were determined using Soap Bubble and two blinded observers independently assessed coronary image quality. Offline analysis on a separate, retrospective cohort (n = 25) was used to compare MVI and 4CH reproducibility. In the prospectively evaluated cohort there was no difference in overall vessel sharpness (4CH vs MVI mean ± SD) (31.0 ± 5.5% vs 30.5 ± 5.7%, p = .63), LCA vessel sharpness (30.0 ± 5.4% vs 31.1 ± 8.2%, p = .44), LCA length (4.7 ± 1.4 cm vs 4.6 ± 1.6 cm, p = .66), RCA vessel sharpness (32.1 ± 6.9% vs 31.1 ± 7.7%, p = .55), RCA length (5.51 ± 2.6 cm vs 5.95 ± 2.4 cm, p = .38), or image quality rating (2.66 vs 2.62, p = .80) between methods. In the retrospective cohort, the MVI method had 5.4% lower inter-observer variability (95% CI 3.7,7.2%, p < .0001) and 3.9% lower intra-observer variability (95% CI 2.4,5.4%, p < .0001) than the 4CH method. MVI is a technically feasible and more reproducible method to determine cardiac rest periods compared to 4CH while preserving vessel sharpness, vessel length & image quality.","PeriodicalId":30457,"journal":{"name":"JRSM Cardiovascular Disease","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JRSM Cardiovascular Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20480040221087556","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
A high temporal resolution, 4-chamber (4CH) cine is the standard method for determining cardiac rest periods during whole heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA). We evaluated the image quality and reproducibility between the 4CH cine method and a novel approach using a velocity encoded mitral valve inflow cine (MVI). The goal of this study was to compare the quality of CMRAs utilizing MVI versus 4CH methods. Sharpness and vessel length for the LCA and RCA using each method were determined using Soap Bubble and two blinded observers independently assessed coronary image quality. Offline analysis on a separate, retrospective cohort (n = 25) was used to compare MVI and 4CH reproducibility. In the prospectively evaluated cohort there was no difference in overall vessel sharpness (4CH vs MVI mean ± SD) (31.0 ± 5.5% vs 30.5 ± 5.7%, p = .63), LCA vessel sharpness (30.0 ± 5.4% vs 31.1 ± 8.2%, p = .44), LCA length (4.7 ± 1.4 cm vs 4.6 ± 1.6 cm, p = .66), RCA vessel sharpness (32.1 ± 6.9% vs 31.1 ± 7.7%, p = .55), RCA length (5.51 ± 2.6 cm vs 5.95 ± 2.4 cm, p = .38), or image quality rating (2.66 vs 2.62, p = .80) between methods. In the retrospective cohort, the MVI method had 5.4% lower inter-observer variability (95% CI 3.7,7.2%, p < .0001) and 3.9% lower intra-observer variability (95% CI 2.4,5.4%, p < .0001) than the 4CH method. MVI is a technically feasible and more reproducible method to determine cardiac rest periods compared to 4CH while preserving vessel sharpness, vessel length & image quality.
在全心冠状动脉磁共振血管造影(CMRA)中,高时间分辨率的4室(4CH)电影是测定心脏休息时间的标准方法。我们评估了4CH影像方法和使用速度编码二尖瓣流入影像(MVI)的新方法之间的图像质量和再现性。本研究的目的是比较使用MVI和4CH方法的CMRAs的质量。使用每种方法的LCA和RCA的清晰度和血管长度由肥皂泡确定,两名盲法观察者独立评估冠状动脉图像质量。对单独的、回顾性队列(n = 25)进行离线分析,比较MVI和4CH的可重复性。的前瞻性评估群体整体容器清晰度没有区别(4 ch vs本平均±标准差)(31.0±5.5%和30.5±5.7%,p =点),LCA船清晰度(30.0±5.4%和31.1±8.2%,p =无误),LCA长度(4.7±1.4厘米和4.6±1.6厘米,p =点),RCA船清晰度(32.1±6.9%和31.1±7.7%,p = 55), RCA长度(5.51±2.6厘米和5.95±2.4厘米,p = 38),或图像质量评价(2.66 vs 2.62, p = .80)方法。在回顾性队列中,MVI方法的观察者间变异性比4CH方法低5.4% (95% CI 3.7,7.2%, p < 0.0001),观察者内变异性比4CH方法低3.9% (95% CI 2.4,5.4%, p < 0.0001)。与4CH相比,MVI是一种技术上可行且可重复性更高的方法,可确定心脏休息时间,同时保持血管清晰度、血管长度和图像质量。