Impact of motion correction on reproducibility and spatial variability of quantitative myocardial T2 mappingReportar como inadecuado




Impact of motion correction on reproducibility and spatial variability of quantitative myocardial T2 mapping - Descarga este documento en PDF. Documentación en PDF para descargar gratis. Disponible también para leer online.

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

, 17:46

First Online: 12 June 2015Received: 29 January 2015Accepted: 01 May 2015

Abstract

BackgroundTo evaluate and quantify the impact of a novel image-based motion correction technique in myocardial T2 mapping in terms of measurement reproducibility and spatial variability.

MethodsTwelve healthy adult subjects were imaged using breath-hold BH, free breathing FB, and free breathing with respiratory navigator gating FB + NAV myocardial T2 mapping sequences.
Fifty patients referred for clinical CMR were imaged using the FB + NAV sequence.
All sequences used a T2 prepared T2prep steady-state free precession acquisition.
In-plane myocardial motion was corrected using an adaptive registration of varying contrast-weighted images for improved tissue characterization ARCTIC.
DICE similarity coefficient DSC and myocardial boundary errors MBE were measured to quantify the motion estimation accuracy in healthy subjects.
T2 mapping reproducibility and spatial variability were evaluated in healthy subjects using 5 repetitions of the FB + NAV sequence with either 4 or 20 T2prep echo times TE.
Subjective T2 map quality was assessed in patients by an experienced reader using a 4-point scale 1-non diagnostic, 4-excellent.

ResultsARCTIC led to increased DSC in BH data 0.85 ± 0.08 vs.
0.90 ± 0.02, p = 0.007, FB data 0.78 ± 0.13 vs.
0.90 ± 0.21, p < 0.001, and FB + NAV data 0.86 ± 0.05 vs.
0.90 ± 0.02, p = 0.002, and reduced MBE in BH data 0.90 ± 0.40 vs.
0.64 ± 0.19 mm, p = 0.005, FB data 1.21 ± 0.65 vs.
0.63 ± 0.10 mm, p < 0.001, and FB + NAV data 0.81 ± 0.21 vs.
0.63 ± 0.08 mm, p < 0.001.
Improved reproducibility 4TE: 5.3 ± 2.5 ms vs.
4.0 ± 1.5 ms, p = 0.016; 20TE: 3.9 ± 2.3 ms vs.
2.2 ± 0.5 ms, p = 0.002, reduced spatial variability 4TE: 12.8 ± 3.5 ms vs.
10.3 ± 2.5 ms, p < 0.001; 20TE: 9.7 ± 3.5 ms vs.
7.5 ± 1.4 ms and improved subjective score of T2 map quality 3.43 ± 0.79 vs.
3.69 ± 0.55, p < 0.001 were obtained using ARCTIC.

ConclusionsThe ARCTIC technique substantially reduces spatial mis-alignment among T2-weighted images and improves the reproducibility and spatial variability of in-vivo T2 mapping.

KeywordsMotion correction Image registration Quantitative myocardial tissue characterization Myocardial T2 mapping AbbreviationsT2prepT2 prepared

ARCTICAdaptive registration of varying contrast-weighted images for improved tissue characterization

BHBreath-hold

FBFree breathing

FBNAVFree breathing conditions with respiratory navigator gating

DSCDICE similarity coefficient

MBEMyocardial boundary errors MBE

TEEecho times

SSFPSteady-state free precession

HIPAAHealth insurance portability and accountability act

ECGElectrocardiogram

TET2PT2prep echo times

TRRepetition time

FOVField of view

SENSESensitivity encoding

SNRSignal-to-noise ratio

GPUGraphic processing unit

CUDACompute unified device architecture

Download fulltext PDF



Autor: Sébastien Roujol - Tamer A. Basha - Sebastian Weingärtner - Mehmet Akçakaya - Sophie Berg - Warren J. Manning - Reza N

Fuente: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12968-015-0141-1



DESCARGAR PDF




Documentos relacionados