Analysis of cardiac function - Comparison between 1.5 tesla and 3.0 tesla cardiac cine magnetic resonance imaging: Preliminary experience

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 133-140

  Michaely, Henrik J ^a,b   Nael, Kambiz ^b   Schoenberg, Stefan O ^a   Laub, Gerhard ^c   Reiser, Maximilian F ^a   Finn, J Paul ^b   Ruehm, Stefan G ^b  

^a LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c SIEMENS CORPORATE RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

1.5 Tesla; 3.0 Tesla; Artifacts; Cardiac cine imaging; Cardiac function; Comparison study; High field imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Spoiled gradient echo; Steady state free precession

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; CASE REPORT; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEART EJECTION FRACTION; HEART FUNCTION; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAGNETIC FIELD; NORMAL HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STUDENT T TEST; SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; ADOLESCENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HEART; HISTOLOGY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTIFACTS; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HEART; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, CINE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33646362302     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000192023.96494.af     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Murray CJ, Lopez AD. Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990-2020: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 1997;349:1498-1504.
2. Yusuf S. The global problem of cardiovascular disease. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 1998;94:3-6.
3. Sanz G, Castaner A, Betriu A, et al. Determinants of prognosis in survivors of myocardial infarction: a prospective clinical angiographic study. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1065-1070.
4. White HD, Norris RM, Brown MA, et al. Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1987;76:44-51.
5. Heusch A, Koch JA, Krogmann ON, et al. Volumetric analysis of the right and left ventricle in a porcine heart model: comparison of three-dimensional echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging and angiocardiography. Eur J Ultrasound. 1999;9:245-255.
6. Higgins CB. Which standard has the gold? J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19:1608-1609.
7. Debatin JF, Nadel SN, Paolini JF, et al. Cardiac ejection fraction: phantom study comparing cine MR imaging, radionuclide blood pool imaging, and ventriculography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1992;2:135-142.
8. Barkhausen J, Ruehm SG, Goyen M, et al. MR evaluation of ventricular function: true fast imaging with steady-state precession versus fast low-angle shot cine MR imaging: feasibility study. Radiology. 2001;219:264-269.
9. Carr JC, Simonetti O, Bundy J, et al. Cine MR angiography of the heart with segmented true fast imaging with steady-state precession. Radiology. 2001;219:828-834.
10. Moon JC, Lorenz CH, Francis JM, et al. Breath-hold FLASH and FISP cardiovascular MR imaging: left ventricular volume differences and reproducibility. Radiology. 2002;223:789-797.
11. Atkinson DJ, Edelman RR. Cineangiography of the heart in a single breath hold with a segmented turboFLASH sequence. Radiology. 1991;178:357-360.
12. Frayne R, Goodyear BG, Dickhoff P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla: challenges and advantages in clinical neurological imaging. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:385-402.
13. Hinton DP, Wald LL, Pitts J, et al. Comparison of cardiac MRI on 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla clinical whole body systems. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:436-442.
14. Deshpande VS, Shea SM, Li D. Artifact reduction in true-FISP imaging of the coronary arteries by adjusting imaging frequency. Magn Reson Med. 2003;49:803-809.
15. Griswold MA, Jakob PM, Heidemann RM, et al. Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA). Magn Reson Med. 2002;47:1202-1210.
16. Francois CJ, Fieno DS, Shors SM, et al. Left ventricular mass: manual and automatic segmentation of true FISP and FLASH cine MR images in dogs and pigs. Radiology. 2004;230:389-395.
17. Atalay MK, Poncelet BP, Kantor HL, et al. Cardiac susceptibility artifacts arising from the heart-lung interface. Magn Reson Med. 2001;45:341-345.
18. Noeske R, Seifert F, Rhein KH, et al. Human cardiac imaging at 3 T using phased array coils. Magn Reson Med. 2000;44:978-982.
19. Wen H, Denison TJ, Singerman RW, et al. The intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio in human cardiac imaging at 1.5, 3, and 4 T. J Magn Reson. 1997;125:65-71.
20. Chien D, Edelman RR. Ultrafast imaging using gradient echoes. Magn Reson Q. 1991;7:31-56.
21. Spuentrup E, Buecker A, Stuber M, et al. Navigator-gated coronary magnetic resonance angiography using steady-state-free-precession: comparison to standard T2-prepared gradient-echo and spiral imaging. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:263-268.
22. Spuentrup E, Bornert P, Botnar RM, et al. Navigator-gated free-breathing three-dimensional balanced fast field echo (TrueFISP) coronary magnetic resonance angiography. Invest Radiol. 2002;37:637-642.
23. McGee KP, Debbins JP, Boskamp EB, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance parallel imaging at 3.0 Tesla: technical feasibility and advantages. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;19:291-297.
24. Schar M, Kozerke S, Fischer SE, et al. Cardiac SSFP imaging at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med. 2004;51:799-806.
25. Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, et al. SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med. 1999;42:952-962.