Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
-
more » « less
Background Cardiac MR fingerprinting (cMRF) is a novel technique for simultaneous T1and T2mapping.
Purpose To compare T1/T2measurements, repeatability, and map quality between cMRF and standard mapping techniques in healthy subjects.
Study Type Prospective.
Population In all, 58 subjects (ages 18–60).
Field Strength/Sequence cMRF, modified Look–Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI), and T2‐prepared balanced steady‐state free precession (bSSFP) at 1.5T.
Assessment T1/T2values were measured in 16 myocardial segments at apical, medial, and basal slice positions. Test–retest and intrareader repeatability were assessed for the medial slice. cMRF and conventional mapping sequences were compared using ordinal and two alternative forced choice (2AFC) ratings.
Statistical Tests Paired
t ‐tests, Bland–Altman analyses, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), linear regression, one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and binomial tests.Results Average T1measurements were: basal 1007.4
± 96.5 msec (cMRF), 990.0± 45.3 msec (MOLLI); medial 995.0± 101.7 msec (cMRF), 995.6± 59.7 msec (MOLLI); apical 1006.6± 111.2 msec (cMRF); and 981.6± 87.6 msec (MOLLI). Average T2measurements were: basal 40.9± 7.0 msec (cMRF), 46.1± 3.5 msec (bSSFP); medial 41.0± 6.4 msec (cMRF), 47.4± 4.1 msec (bSSFP); apical 43.5± 6.7 msec (cMRF), 48.0± 4.0 msec (bSSFP). A statistically significant bias (cMRF T1larger than MOLLI T1) was observed in basal (17.4 msec) and apical (25.0 msec) slices. For T2, a statistically significant bias (cMRF lower than bSSFP) was observed for basal (–5.2 msec), medial (–6.3 msec), and apical (–4.5 msec) slices. Precision was lower for cMRF—the average of the standard deviation measured within each slice was 102 msec for cMRF vs. 61 msec for MOLLI T1, and 6.4 msec for cMRF vs. 4.0 msec for bSSFP T2. cMRF and conventional techniques had similar test–retest repeatability as quantified by ICC (0.87 cMRF vs. 0.84 MOLLI for T1; 0.85 cMRF vs. 0.85 bSSFP for T2). In the ordinal image quality comparison, cMRF maps scored higher than conventional sequences for both T1(all five features) and T2(four features).Data Conclusion This work reports on myocardial T1/T2measurements in healthy subjects using cMRF and standard mapping sequences. cMRF had slightly lower precision, similar test–retest and intrareader repeatability, and higher scores for map quality.
Evidence Level 2
Technical Efficacy Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:1044–1052.
