场强对刺激回波和运动补偿自旋回波扩散张量心血管磁共振序列的影响。

IF 4.2 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Pub Date : 2024-06-25 DOI:10.1016/j.jocmr.2024.101052
Andrew D Scott, Ke Wen, Yaqing Luo, Jiahao Huang, Simon Gover, Rajkumar Soundarajan, Pedro F Ferreira, Dudley J Pennell, Sonia Nielles-Vallespin
{"title":"场强对刺激回波和运动补偿自旋回波扩散张量心血管磁共振序列的影响。","authors":"Andrew D Scott, Ke Wen, Yaqing Luo, Jiahao Huang, Simon Gover, Rajkumar Soundarajan, Pedro F Ferreira, Dudley J Pennell, Sonia Nielles-Vallespin","doi":"10.1016/j.jocmr.2024.101052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In-vivo diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance (DT-CMR) is an emerging technique for microstructural tissue characterization in the myocardium. Most studies are performed at 3T, where higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) should benefit this signal-starved method. However, a few studies have suggested that DT-CMR is possible at 1.5T, where echo planar imaging artifacts may be less severe and 1.5T hardware is more widely available.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited 20 healthy volunteers and performed mid-ventricular short-axis DT-CMR at 1.5T and 3T. Acquisitions were performed at peak systole and end-diastole using both stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) and motion-compensated spin-echo (MCSE) sequences at matched spatial resolutions. DT-CMR parameters were averaged over the left ventricle and compared between 1.5T and 3T sequences using both datasets with and without the b<sub>low</sub> reference data included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven (1.5T) and 12 (3T) diastolic MCSE acquisitions were rejected as the helix angle (HA) demonstrated <50% normal appearance circumferentially or the acquisition was abandoned due to poor image quality; a maximum of one acquisition was rejected for other datasets. Subjective HA map quality was significantly better at 3T than 1.5T for STEAM (p < 0.05), but not for MCSE and other DT-CMR quality measures were consistent with improvements in STEAM at 3T over 1.5T. When b<sub>low</sub> data were excluded, no significant differences in mean diffusivity were observed between field strengths, but fractional anisotropy was significantly higher at 1.5T than 3T for STEAM systole (p < 0.05). Absolute second eigenvector orientation (E2A, sheetlet angle) was significantly higher at 1.5T than 3T for MCSE systole and STEAM diastole, but significantly lower for STEAM systole (all p < 0.05). Transmural HA distribution was less steep at 1.5T than 3T for STEAM diastole data (p < 0.05). SNR was higher at 3T than 1.5T for all acquisitions (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While 3T provides benefits in terms of SNR, both STEAM and MCSE can be performed at 1.5T. However, MCSE is unreliable in diastole at both field strengths and STEAM benefits from the improved SNR at 3T over 1.5T. Future clinical research studies may be able to leverage the wider availability of 1.5T CMR hardware where MCSE acquisitions are desirable.</p>","PeriodicalId":15221,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11283220/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effects of field strength on stimulated echo and motion-compensated spin-echo diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance sequences.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew D Scott, Ke Wen, Yaqing Luo, Jiahao Huang, Simon Gover, Rajkumar Soundarajan, Pedro F Ferreira, Dudley J Pennell, Sonia Nielles-Vallespin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jocmr.2024.101052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In-vivo diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance (DT-CMR) is an emerging technique for microstructural tissue characterization in the myocardium. Most studies are performed at 3T, where higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) should benefit this signal-starved method. However, a few studies have suggested that DT-CMR is possible at 1.5T, where echo planar imaging artifacts may be less severe and 1.5T hardware is more widely available.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited 20 healthy volunteers and performed mid-ventricular short-axis DT-CMR at 1.5T and 3T. Acquisitions were performed at peak systole and end-diastole using both stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) and motion-compensated spin-echo (MCSE) sequences at matched spatial resolutions. DT-CMR parameters were averaged over the left ventricle and compared between 1.5T and 3T sequences using both datasets with and without the b<sub>low</sub> reference data included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven (1.5T) and 12 (3T) diastolic MCSE acquisitions were rejected as the helix angle (HA) demonstrated <50% normal appearance circumferentially or the acquisition was abandoned due to poor image quality; a maximum of one acquisition was rejected for other datasets. Subjective HA map quality was significantly better at 3T than 1.5T for STEAM (p < 0.05), but not for MCSE and other DT-CMR quality measures were consistent with improvements in STEAM at 3T over 1.5T. When b<sub>low</sub> data were excluded, no significant differences in mean diffusivity were observed between field strengths, but fractional anisotropy was significantly higher at 1.5T than 3T for STEAM systole (p < 0.05). Absolute second eigenvector orientation (E2A, sheetlet angle) was significantly higher at 1.5T than 3T for MCSE systole and STEAM diastole, but significantly lower for STEAM systole (all p < 0.05). Transmural HA distribution was less steep at 1.5T than 3T for STEAM diastole data (p < 0.05). SNR was higher at 3T than 1.5T for all acquisitions (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While 3T provides benefits in terms of SNR, both STEAM and MCSE can be performed at 1.5T. However, MCSE is unreliable in diastole at both field strengths and STEAM benefits from the improved SNR at 3T over 1.5T. Future clinical research studies may be able to leverage the wider availability of 1.5T CMR hardware where MCSE acquisitions are desirable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11283220/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocmr.2024.101052\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocmr.2024.101052","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:体内弥散张量 CMR(DT-CMR)是一种新兴的心肌微结构组织特征描述技术。大多数研究都是在 3T 下进行的,较高的信噪比(SNR)应有利于这种信号匮乏的方法。不过,也有少数研究表明,DT-CMR 可以在 1.5T 下进行,因为在 1.5T 下 EPI 伪影可能不那么严重,而且 1.5T 硬件也更容易获得:我们招募了 20 名健康志愿者,在 1.5 T 和 3 T 下进行了心室中轴短轴 DT-CMR 采集。采集在收缩高峰和舒张末期进行,使用刺激回波采集模式(STEAM)和运动补偿自旋回波(MCSE)序列,空间分辨率匹配。对左心室的 DT-CMR 参数进行了平均,并使用包含和不包含打击参考数据的两个数据集对 1.5 T 和 3 T 序列进行了比较:有 11 次(1.5T)和 12 次(3T)舒张期 MCSE 采集因螺旋角(HA)较低而被剔除,场强之间的平均弥散率没有观察到显著差异,但在 STEAM 收缩期,1.5T 的分数各向异性明显高于 3T(在所有采集中,3T 的犁状图像高于 1.5T 的犁状图像):虽然 3T 在信噪比方面有优势,但 STEAM 和 MCSE 均可在 1.5T 下进行。不过,MCSE 在两种场强下的舒张期都不可靠,而 STEAM 则得益于 3T 比 1.5T 更高的信噪比。未来的临床研究可能会利用更广泛的 1.5T CMR 硬件来进行 MCSE 采集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The effects of field strength on stimulated echo and motion-compensated spin-echo diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance sequences.

Background: In-vivo diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance (DT-CMR) is an emerging technique for microstructural tissue characterization in the myocardium. Most studies are performed at 3T, where higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) should benefit this signal-starved method. However, a few studies have suggested that DT-CMR is possible at 1.5T, where echo planar imaging artifacts may be less severe and 1.5T hardware is more widely available.

Methods: We recruited 20 healthy volunteers and performed mid-ventricular short-axis DT-CMR at 1.5T and 3T. Acquisitions were performed at peak systole and end-diastole using both stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) and motion-compensated spin-echo (MCSE) sequences at matched spatial resolutions. DT-CMR parameters were averaged over the left ventricle and compared between 1.5T and 3T sequences using both datasets with and without the blow reference data included.

Results: Eleven (1.5T) and 12 (3T) diastolic MCSE acquisitions were rejected as the helix angle (HA) demonstrated <50% normal appearance circumferentially or the acquisition was abandoned due to poor image quality; a maximum of one acquisition was rejected for other datasets. Subjective HA map quality was significantly better at 3T than 1.5T for STEAM (p < 0.05), but not for MCSE and other DT-CMR quality measures were consistent with improvements in STEAM at 3T over 1.5T. When blow data were excluded, no significant differences in mean diffusivity were observed between field strengths, but fractional anisotropy was significantly higher at 1.5T than 3T for STEAM systole (p < 0.05). Absolute second eigenvector orientation (E2A, sheetlet angle) was significantly higher at 1.5T than 3T for MCSE systole and STEAM diastole, but significantly lower for STEAM systole (all p < 0.05). Transmural HA distribution was less steep at 1.5T than 3T for STEAM diastole data (p < 0.05). SNR was higher at 3T than 1.5T for all acquisitions (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: While 3T provides benefits in terms of SNR, both STEAM and MCSE can be performed at 1.5T. However, MCSE is unreliable in diastole at both field strengths and STEAM benefits from the improved SNR at 3T over 1.5T. Future clinical research studies may be able to leverage the wider availability of 1.5T CMR hardware where MCSE acquisitions are desirable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) publishes high-quality articles on all aspects of basic, translational and clinical research on the design, development, manufacture, and evaluation of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) methods applied to the cardiovascular system. Topical areas include, but are not limited to: New applications of magnetic resonance to improve the diagnostic strategies, risk stratification, characterization and management of diseases affecting the cardiovascular system. New methods to enhance or accelerate image acquisition and data analysis. Results of multicenter, or larger single-center studies that provide insight into the utility of CMR. Basic biological perceptions derived by CMR methods.
期刊最新文献
Design and Rationale of MYOFLAME-19 RCT: MYOcardial protection to reduce inFLAMmatory heart disease due to COVID-19 Infection using CMR Endpoints. Association Between Subclinical Right Ventricular Alterations and Aerobic Exercise Capacity in Type 2 Diabetes. Biventricular longitudinal strain analysis using CMR feature-tracking: prognostic value in Eisenmenger syndrome. Interstitial Fibrosis and Arrhythmic Mitral Valve Prolapse: Unravelling Sex-Based Differences. Safety of dobutamine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1