Assessment of biventricular cardiac function using free-breathing artificial intelligence cine with motion correction: Comparison with standard multiple breath-holding cine

Purpose

To assess the image quality and biventricular function utilizing a free-breathing artificial intelligence cine method with motion correction (FB AI MOCO).

Methods

A total of 72 participants (mean age 38.3 ± 15.4 years, 40 males) prospectively enrolled in this single-center, cross-sectional study underwent cine scans using standard breath-holding (BH) cine and FB AI MOCO cine at 3.0 Tesla. The image quality of the cine images was evaluated with a 5-point Ordinal Likert scale based on blood-pool to myocardium contrast, endocardial edge definition, and artifacts, and overall quality score was calculated by the equal weight average of all three criteria, apparent signal to noise ratio (aSNR), estimated contrast to noise ratio (eCNR) were assessed. Biventricular functional parameters including Left Ventricular (LV), Right Ventricular (RV) End-Diastolic Volume (EDV), End-Systolic Volume (ESV), Stroke Volume (SV), Ejection Fraction (EF), and LV End-Diastolic Mass (LVEDM) were also assessed. Comparison between two sequences was assessed using paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, correlation using Pearson correlation. The agreement of quantitative parameters was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. P < 0.05 was statistically significant.

Results

The total acquisition time of the entire stack for FB AI MOCO cine (14.7 s ± 1.9 s) was notably shorter than that for standard BH cine (82.6 s ± 11.9 s, P < 0.001). The aSNR between FB AI MOCO cine and standard BH cine has no significantly difference (76.7 ± 20.7 vs. 79.8 ± 20.7, P = 0.193). The eCNR of FB AI MOCO cine was higher than standard BH cine (191.6 ± 54.0 vs. 155.8 ± 68.4, P < 0.001), as was the scores of blood-pool to myocardium contrast (4.6 ± 0.5 vs. 4.4 ± 0.6, P = 0.003). Qualitative scores including endocardial edge definition (4.2 ± 0.5 vs. 4.3 ± 0.7, P = 0.123), artifact presence (4.3 ± 0.6 vs. 4.1 ± 0.8, P = 0.085), and overall image quality (4.4 ± 0.4 vs. 4.3 ± 0.6, P = 0.448), showed no significant differences between the two methods. Representative RV and LV functional parameters — including RVEDV (102.2 (86.4, 120.4) ml vs. 104.0 (88.5, 120.3) ml, P = 0.294), RVEF (31.0 ± 11.1 % vs. 31.2 ± 11.0 %, P = 0.570), and LVEDV (106.2 (86.7, 131.3) ml vs. 105.8 (84.4, 130.3) ml, P = 0.450) — also did not differ significantly between the two methods. Strong correlations (r > 0.900) and excellent agreement (ICC > 0.900) were found for all biventricular functional parameters between the two sequences. In subgroups with reduced LVEF (<50 %, n = 24) or elevated heart rate (≥80  bpm, n = 17), no significant differences were observed in any biventricular functional metrics (P > 0.05 for all) between the two sequences.

Conclusion

In comparison to multiple BH cine, the FB AI MOCO cine achieved comparable image quality and biventricular functional parameters with shorter scan times, suggesting its promising potential for clinical applications.