z-logo
Premium
Reproducibility of three different cardiac T 2 ‐mapping sequences at 1.5T
Author(s) -
Baeßler Bettina,
Schaarschmidt Frank,
Stehning Christian,
Schnackenburg Bernhard,
Giolda Agathe,
Maintz David,
Bunck Alexander C.
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.25258
Subject(s) - reproducibility , medicine , computer science , nuclear medicine , medical physics , mathematics , statistics
Purpose To elucidate the impact of technical and intraindividual reproducibility on the overall variability of myocardial T 2 relaxation times. Materials and Methods Thirty healthy volunteers were examined three times (day 1 morning/evening, evening after 2–3 weeks) at 1.5T. During each examination three different T 2 ‐mapping sequences were acquired twice at three slices in short axis view: multi‐echo‐spin‐echo (MESE), T 2 ‐prepared balanced steady‐state free precession (SSFP) ( T 2 prep), and gradient‐spin‐echo with and without fat saturation (GraSE/GraSE FS ). Repeated measurements were performed for T 2 prep and GraSE. Segmented T 2 ‐maps were generated for each slice according to the American Heart Association (AHA) 16‐segment model. Results The coefficients of variation and intraclass correlation coefficients for intraobserver variability were: 1.3% and 0.89 for T 2 prep, 1.5% and 0.93 for GraSE, 3.1% and 0.83 for MESE; and for interobserver variability: 3.3% and 0.66 for T 2 prep, 2.0% and 0.83 for GraSE, 3.6% and 0.77 for MESE. No systematic difference of T 2 times was observed due to diurnal effects and on long‐term analysis using one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey‐type multiple comparisons (morning vs. evening scan for T 2 prep: 52.5 ± 2.4 vs. 51.7 ± 2.7 msec, P = 0.119; for GraSE: 58.6 ± 4.0 vs. 58.5 ± 3.8 msec, P = 0.984; for GraSE FS 57.1 ± 3.2 vs. 57.2 ± 3.9 msec, P = 0.998, and for MESE: 53.8 ± 2.7 vs. 53.3 ± 3.3 msec, P = 0.541; scans between weeks for T 2 prep: 51.7 ± 2.7 vs. 51.4 ± 2.4 msec, P = 0.873; for GraSE: 58.5 ± 3.8 vs. 58.1 ± 3.4 msec, P = 0.736; for GraSE FS : 57.2 ± 3.9 vs. 57.0 ± 4.6 msec, P = 0.964, and for MESE: 53.3 ± 3.3 vs. 53.4 ± 2.4 msec, P = 0.970). ANOVA components, however, demonstrated a greater variance of T 2 times over multiple timepoints than for repeated measurements within the same scan (variance components of the model fit for intraday variance vs. repeated measurements: T 2 prep 2.22 vs. 1.36, GraSE 3.76 vs. 2.09, GraSE FS 3.96 vs. 1.58, MESE 1.86; and for interweeks variance vs. repeated measurements: T 2 prep 2.21 vs. 0.80, GraSE 3.20 vs. 2.10, GraSE FS 8.82 vs. 1.18, and MESE 4.49). Conclusion Technical reproducibility and intra‐ and interobserver agreement of myocardial T 2 relaxation times are excellent and intraindividual variation over time is small. Therefore, we consider subject‐related factors to explain most of the interindividual variability of myocardial T 2 times reported in previous studies. The acknowledgment of this subject‐related, biological variability may be important for the future diagnostic value of T 2 ‐mapping. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1168–1178.

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