English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background The management of iron overload has been transformed by the use of T2* as a surrogate marker of cardiac iron loading. The presence of iron however not only changes T2*, but also T2 and T1. Recent advances make T1 mapping a possible complementary technique to T2*. Preliminary data are encouraging, but the relative advantages and disadvantages and optimal mathematical model for the relationship between T1 and T2* remain unknown. Methods This was a single centre prospective study of 250 patients (age 37 ± 13 years) referred with potential iron overload for T2* assessment, with 50 healthy volunteers (age 44 ± 11 years) as a reference comparison group. Each participant underwent short axis septal T2* (standard Siemens sequence using 8 different TE) at 1.5T and in addition myocardial T1 mapping (ShMOLLI sequence). Results Image quality 27% of patients required more than one T2* acquisition to obtain optimal images for analysis compared with 12% for T1 mapping. ShMOLLI images were uninterpretable in 2 patients due to the presence of an MRI conditional pacemaker, and the positioning of a PORT-A-CATH implantable venous access system. It is known that some patients were unable to complete T2* sequences (21 heart beat scan), but these were not captured by the inclusion criteria of the study. There was an exponential relationship between T1 and T2* across all patients and healthy volunteers (R 2 =0.71, p<0.001, figure 1). This was composed of a tight curvefit below T2* of 20ms (R 2 =0.83, p<0.001, figure 2A) and almost no correlation above 20ms (R 2 =0.07, figure 2B). The lower limit of normal (2SD below the mean) T1 from the healthy volunteers was 895ms. In patients with T2* above 20ms, T1 was normal in 55%, high in 1% and low in 44%. The derived equivalent T1 cutpoints for published T2* cutoffs for mild, moderate and severe iron were 20ms (846ms); 14ms (705ms) and 10ms (636ms). If T1 is accurate for iron, then using the lower limit of normal for T1 (895ms) would suggest that the normal limit for T2* would be 29ms. However, of the 50 healthy volunteers, 8 (16%) had T2*s lower than this, possibly due to relatively lower precision of T2* measurements.

Myocardial iron quantification using T2* and native T1mapping - a 250 patient study