Premium
Simultaneous Mapping of T 1 and T 2 Using Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting in a Cohort of Healthy Subjects at 1. 5T
Author(s) -
Hamilton Jesse I.,
Pahwa Shivani,
Adedigba Joseph,
Frankel Samuel,
O'Connor Gregory,
Thomas Rahul,
Walker Jonathan R.,
Killinc Ozden,
Lo WeiChing,
Batesole Joshua,
Margevicius Seunghee,
Griswold Mark,
Rajagopalan Sanjay,
Gulani Vikas,
Seiberlich Nicole
Publication year - 2020
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.27155
Subject(s) - intraclass correlation , medicine , repeatability , nuclear medicine , basal (medicine) , reproducibility , mathematics , statistics , insulin
Background Cardiac MR fingerprinting (cMRF) is a novel technique for simultaneous T 1 and T 2 mapping. Purpose To compare T 1 /T 2 measurements, repeatability, and map quality between cMRF and standard mapping techniques in healthy subjects. Study Type Prospective. Population In all, 58 subjects (ages 18–60). Field Strength/Sequence cMRF, modified Look–Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI), and T 2 ‐prepared balanced steady‐state free precession (bSSFP) at 1.5T. Assessment T 1 /T 2 values were measured in 16 myocardial segments at apical, medial, and basal slice positions. Test–retest and intrareader repeatability were assessed for the medial slice. cMRF and conventional mapping sequences were compared using ordinal and two alternative forced choice (2AFC) ratings. Statistical Tests Paired t ‐tests, Bland–Altman analyses, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), linear regression, one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and binomial tests. Results Average T 1 measurements were: basal 1007.4 ± 96.5 msec (cMRF), 990.0 ± 45.3 msec (MOLLI); medial 995.0 ± 101.7 msec (cMRF), 995.6 ± 59.7 msec (MOLLI); apical 1006.6 ± 111.2 msec (cMRF); and 981.6 ± 87.6 msec (MOLLI). Average T 2 measurements were: basal 40.9 ± 7.0 msec (cMRF), 46.1 ± 3.5 msec (bSSFP); medial 41.0 ± 6.4 msec (cMRF), 47.4 ± 4.1 msec (bSSFP); apical 43.5 ± 6.7 msec (cMRF), 48.0 ± 4.0 msec (bSSFP). A statistically significant bias (cMRF T 1 larger than MOLLI T 1 ) was observed in basal (17.4 msec) and apical (25.0 msec) slices. For T 2 , a statistically significant bias (cMRF lower than bSSFP) was observed for basal (–5.2 msec), medial (–6.3 msec), and apical (–4.5 msec) slices. Precision was lower for cMRF—the average of the standard deviation measured within each slice was 102 msec for cMRF vs. 61 msec for MOLLI T 1 , and 6.4 msec for cMRF vs. 4.0 msec for bSSFP T 2 . cMRF and conventional techniques had similar test–retest repeatability as quantified by ICC (0.87 cMRF vs. 0.84 MOLLI for T 1 ; 0.85 cMRF vs. 0.85 bSSFP for T 2 ). In the ordinal image quality comparison, cMRF maps scored higher than conventional sequences for both T 1 (all five features) and T 2 (four features). Data Conclusion This work reports on myocardial T 1 /T 2 measurements in healthy subjects using cMRF and standard mapping sequences. cMRF had slightly lower precision, similar test–retest and intrareader repeatability, and higher scores for map quality. Evidence Level 2 Technical Efficacy Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:1044–1052.