z-logo
Premium
Usefulness of non–contrast‐enhanced MRI with two‐dimensional balanced steady‐state free precession for the acquisition of the pulmonary venous and left atrial anatomy pre catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: Comparison with contrast enhanced CT in clinical cases
Author(s) -
Shigenaga Yutaka,
Okajima Katsunori,
Ikeuchi Kazushi,
Kiuchi Kunihiko,
Ikeda Takayuki,
Shimane Akira,
Yokoi Kiminobu,
Teranishi Jin,
Aoki Kousuke,
Chimura Misato,
Yamada Shinichiro,
Taniguchi Yasuyo,
Yasaka Yoshinori,
Kawai Hiroya
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.24990
Subject(s) - steady state free precession imaging , medicine , atrial fibrillation , ablation , nuclear medicine , catheter ablation , contrast (vision) , radiology , magnetic resonance imaging , cardiology , physics , optics
Background To investigate the feasibility of substituting non–contrast‐enhanced MR (non–CE‐MR) imaging with a two‐dimensional (2D) balanced steady‐state free precession (b‐SSFP) sequence for contrast‐enhanced computed tomography (CE‐CT) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Methods Fifty‐four patients that underwent AF ablation under the guidance of a 3D electro‐anatomical mapping system with CE‐CT (n = 27) or non–CE‐MR images (n = 27) were studied. Procedural results were compared between the two groups. Furthermore, in 22 patients who underwent both CE‐CT and non–CE‐MRI, two cardiologists independently scored the multiplanar reformatted images on a scale of 1 to 4 (from 1, poor, to 4, excellent). Results The image score was nearly 0.5 point higher with the CE‐CT method. However, the procedural results such as the surface registration error (1.0 [0.8–1.6] mm versus 1.0 [0.8–1.35] mm, P = 0.88) and procedure time (185 [159–199] min versus 185 [142–221] min, P = 0.86) did not significantly differ between the CE‐CT and non–CE‐MR groups. Conclusion The non–CE‐MR method with a 2D‐b‐SSFP sequence can give us adequate information on AF ablation without any radiation exposure or contrast medium usage. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;43:495–503.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom