Premium
Image quality and myocardial scar size determined with magnetic resonance imaging in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation: a comparison of two imaging protocols
Author(s) -
Rosendahl Lene,
Ahlander BrittMarie,
Björklund PerGunnar,
Blomstrand Peter,
Brudin Lars,
Engvall Jan E.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
clinical physiology and functional imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.608
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1475-097X
pISSN - 1475-0961
DOI - 10.1111/j.1475-097x.2009.00914.x
Subject(s) - steady state free precession imaging , medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , atrial fibrillation , image quality , cardiology , myocardial infarction , nuclear medicine , radiology , artificial intelligence , computer science , image (mathematics)
Summary Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the heart generally requires breath holding and a regular rhythm. Single shot 2D steady‐state free precession (SS_SSFP) is a fast sequence insensitive to arrhythmia as well as breath holding. Our purpose was to determine image quality, signal‐to‐noise (SNR) and contrast‐to‐noise (CNR) ratios and infarct size with a fast single shot and a standard segmented MRI sequence in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and chronic myocardial infarction. Methods: Twenty patients with chronic myocardial infarction and ongoing atrial fibrillation were examined with inversion recovery SS_SSFP and segmented inversion recovery 2D fast gradient echo (IR_FGRE). Image quality was assessed in four categories: delineation of infarcted and non‐infarcted myocardium, occurrence of artefacts and overall image quality. SNR and CNR were calculated. Myocardial volume (ml) and infarct size, expressed as volume (ml) and extent (%), were calculated, and the methodological error was assessed. Results: SS_SSFP had significantly better quality scores in all categories ( P = 0·037, P = 0·014, P = 0·021, P = 0·03). SNR infarct and SNR blood were significantly better for IR_FGRE than for SS_SSFP ( P = 0·048, P = 0·018). No significant difference was found in SNR myocardium and CNR. The myocardial volume was significantly larger with SS_SSFP (170·7 versus 159·2 ml, P <0·001), but no significant difference was found in infarct volume and infarct extent. Conclusion: SS_SSFP displayed significantly better image quality than IR_FGRE. The infarct size and the error in its determination were equal for both sequences, and the examination time was shorter with SS_SSFP.