Di Tian, Yi Sun, Jia-Jun Guo, Shi-Hai Zhao, Hong-Fei Lu, Yin-Yin Chen, Mei-Ying Ge, Meng-Su Zeng, Hang Jin
{"title":"3.0 T unenhanced Dixon water-fat separation whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography: compressed-sensing sensitivity encoding imaging versus conventional 2D sensitivity encoding imaging.","authors":"Di Tian, Yi Sun, Jia-Jun Guo, Shi-Hai Zhao, Hong-Fei Lu, Yin-Yin Chen, Mei-Ying Ge, Meng-Su Zeng, Hang Jin","doi":"10.1007/s10554-023-02878-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study was aimed to investigate 3.0 T unenhanced Dixon water-fat whole-heart CMRA (coronary magnetic resonance angiography) using compressed-sensing sensitivity encoding (CS-SENSE) and conventional sensitivity encoding (SENSE) in vitro and in vivo. The key parameters of CS-SENSE and conventional 1D/2D SENSE were compared in vitro phantom study. In vivo study, fifty patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) completed unenhanced Dixon water-fat whole-heart CMRA at 3.0 T using both CS-SENSE and conventional 2D SENSE methods. We compared mean acquisition time, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and the diagnostic accuracy between two techniques. In vitro study, CS-SENSE achieved better effectiveness between higher SNR/CNR and shorter scan times using the appropriate acceleration factor compared with conventional 2D SENSE. In vivo study, CS-SENSE CMRA had better performance than 2D SENSE in terms of the mean acquisition time, SNR and CNR (7.4 ± 3.2 min vs. 8.3 ± 3.4 min, P = 0.001; SNR: 115.5 ± 35.4 vs. 103.3 ± 32.2; CNR: 101.1 ± 33.2 vs. 90.6 ± 30.1, P < 0.001 for both). The diagnostic accuracy between CS-SENSE and 2D SENSE had no significant difference on a patient-based analysis (sensitivity: 97.3% vs. 91.9%; specificity: 76.9% vs. 61.5%; accuracy: 92.0% vs. 84.0%; P > 0.05 for each). Unenhanced CS-SENSE Dixon water-fat separation whole-heart CMRA at 3.0 T can improve the SNR and CNR, shorten the acquisition time while providing equally satisfactory image quality and diagnostic accuracy compared with 2D SENSE CMRA.</p>","PeriodicalId":50332,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging","volume":" ","pages":"1775-1784"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-023-02878-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study was aimed to investigate 3.0 T unenhanced Dixon water-fat whole-heart CMRA (coronary magnetic resonance angiography) using compressed-sensing sensitivity encoding (CS-SENSE) and conventional sensitivity encoding (SENSE) in vitro and in vivo. The key parameters of CS-SENSE and conventional 1D/2D SENSE were compared in vitro phantom study. In vivo study, fifty patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) completed unenhanced Dixon water-fat whole-heart CMRA at 3.0 T using both CS-SENSE and conventional 2D SENSE methods. We compared mean acquisition time, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and the diagnostic accuracy between two techniques. In vitro study, CS-SENSE achieved better effectiveness between higher SNR/CNR and shorter scan times using the appropriate acceleration factor compared with conventional 2D SENSE. In vivo study, CS-SENSE CMRA had better performance than 2D SENSE in terms of the mean acquisition time, SNR and CNR (7.4 ± 3.2 min vs. 8.3 ± 3.4 min, P = 0.001; SNR: 115.5 ± 35.4 vs. 103.3 ± 32.2; CNR: 101.1 ± 33.2 vs. 90.6 ± 30.1, P < 0.001 for both). The diagnostic accuracy between CS-SENSE and 2D SENSE had no significant difference on a patient-based analysis (sensitivity: 97.3% vs. 91.9%; specificity: 76.9% vs. 61.5%; accuracy: 92.0% vs. 84.0%; P > 0.05 for each). Unenhanced CS-SENSE Dixon water-fat separation whole-heart CMRA at 3.0 T can improve the SNR and CNR, shorten the acquisition time while providing equally satisfactory image quality and diagnostic accuracy compared with 2D SENSE CMRA.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging publishes technical and clinical communications (original articles, review articles and editorial comments) associated with cardiovascular diseases. The technical communications include the research, development and evaluation of novel imaging methods in the various imaging domains. These domains include magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, X-ray imaging, intravascular imaging, and applications in nuclear cardiology and echocardiography, and any combination of these techniques. Of particular interest are topics in medical image processing and image-guided interventions. Clinical applications of such imaging techniques include improved diagnostic approaches, treatment , prognosis and follow-up of cardiovascular patients. Topics include: multi-center or larger individual studies dealing with risk stratification and imaging utilization, applications for better characterization of cardiovascular diseases, and assessment of the efficacy of new drugs and interventional devices.