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  Feature tracking (FT) has become an established tool for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-based strain analysis. Recently, the compressed sensing (CS) technique has been applied to cine CMR, which has drastically reduced its acquisition time. However, the effects of CS imaging on FT strain analysis need to be carefully studied. This study aimed to investigate the use of CS cine CMR for FT strain analysis compared to conventional cine CMR.    Methods  Sixty-five patients with different left ventricular (LV) pathologies underwent both retrospective conventional cine CMR and prospective CS cine CMR using a prototype sequence with the comparable temporal and spatial resolution at 3 T. Eight short-axis cine images covering the entire LV were obtained and used for LV volume assessment and FT strain analysis. Prospective CS cine CMR data over 1.5 heartbeats were acquired to capture the complete end-diastolic data between the first and second heartbeats. LV volume assessment and FT strain analysis were performed using a dedicated software (ci 42 ; Circle Cardiovasacular Imaging, Calgary, Canada), and the global circumferential strain (GCS) and GCS rate were calculated from both cine CMR sequences.    Results  There were no significant differences in the GCS (− 17.1% [− 11.7, − 19.5] vs. − 16.1% [− 11.9, − 19.3; p = 0.508) and GCS rate (− 0.8 [− 0.6, − 1.0] vs. − 0.8 [− 0.7, − 1.0]; p = 0.587) obtained using conventional and CS cine CMR. The GCS obtained using both methods showed excellent agreement (y = 0.99x − 0.24; r = 0.95; p < 0.001). The Bland–Altman analysis revealed that the mean difference in the GCS between the conventional and CS cine CMR was 0.1% with limits of agreement between -2.8% and 3.0%. No significant differences were found in all LV volume assessment between both types of cine CMR.    Conclusion  CS cine CMR could be used for GCS assessment by CMR-FT as well as conventional cine CMR. This finding further enhances the clinical utility of high-speed CS cine CMR imaging.

journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Comparison between conventional and compressed sensing cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance for feature tracking global circumferential strain assessment