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  Myocardial T 1 -mapping recently emerged as a promising quantitative method for non-invasive tissue characterization in numerous cardiomyopathies. Commonly performed with an inversion-recovery (IR) magnetization preparation at 1.5T, the application at 3T has gained due to increased quantification precision. Alternatively, saturation-recovery (SR) T 1 -mapping has recently been introduced at 1.5T for improved accuracy.  Thus, the purpose of this study is to investigate the robustness and precision of SR T 1 -mapping at 3T and to establish accurate reference values for native T 1 -times and extracellular volume fraction (ECV) of healthy myocardium.    Methods  Balanced Steady-State Free-Precession (bSSFP) Saturation-Pulse Prepared Heart-rate independent Inversion-REcovery (SAPPHIRE) and Saturation-recovery Single-SHot Acquisition (SASHA) T 1 -mapping were compared with the Modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) sequence at 3T. Accuracy and precision were studied in phantom. Native and post-contrast T 1 -times and regional ECV were determined in 20 healthy subjects (10 men, 27 ± 5 years). Subjective image quality, susceptibility artifact rating, in-vivo precision and reproducibility were analyzed.    Results  SR T 1 -mapping showed <4 % deviation from the spin-echo reference in phantom in the range of T 1  = 100–2300 ms. The average quality and artifact scores of the T 1 -mapping methods were: MOLLI:3.4/3.6, SAPPHIRE:3.1/3.4, SASHA:2.9/3.2; (1: poor - 4: excellent/1: strong - 4: none). SAPPHIRE and SASHA yielded significantly higher T 1 -times (SAPPHIRE: 1578 ± 42 ms, SASHA: 1523 ± 46 ms), in-vivo T 1 -time variation (SAPPHIRE: 60.1 ± 8.7 ms, SASHA: 70.0 ± 9.3 ms) and lower ECV-values (SAPPHIRE: 0.20 ± 0.02, SASHA: 0.21 ± 0.03) compared with MOLLI (T 1 : 1181 ± 47 ms, ECV: 0.26 ± 0.03, Precision: 53.7 ± 8.1 ms). No significant difference was found in the inter-subject variability of T 1 -times or ECV-values (T 1 :  p  = 0.90, ECV:  p  = 0.78), the observer agreement (inter:  p  > 0.19; intra:  p  > 0.09) or consistency (inter:  p  > 0.07; intra:  p  > 0.17) between the three methods.    Conclusions  Saturation-recovery T 1 -mapping at 3T yields higher accuracy, comparable inter-subject, inter- and intra-observer variability and less than 30 % precision-loss compared to MOLLI.    Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12968-016-0302-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Myocardial T1-mapping at 3T using saturation-recovery: reference values, precision and comparison with MOLLI