Quantitative assessment of left ventricular function: steady-state free precession MR imaging with or without sensitivity encoding.

Quantitative left ventricular (LV) function was assessed with magnetic resonance imaging in 20 patients by using standard multisection multiphase steady-state free precession (SSFP) imaging and sensitivity encoding (SENSE)-accelerated cine SSFP imaging with identical spatial, contrast, and temporal resolution. The local institutional review board approved the protocol, and all patients gave signed informed consent prior to imaging. The study complied with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Results of Bland-Altman analysis showed that both techniques produced similar estimates of LV ejection fraction, LV mass, and blood-to-muscle contrast and demonstrated minimal interobserver variability. The authors showed that it is possible, by combining SENSE with cine SSFP imaging, to reduce acquisition time by 50% without compromising spatial resolution, temporal resolution, or blood-to-muscle contrast-to-noise ratio compared with those achieved by using SSFP imaging without SENSE for quantitative LV function assessment.

[1]  S. Plein,et al.  Normal human left and right ventricular dimensions for MRI as assessed by turbo gradient echo and steady‐state free precession imaging sequences , 2003, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[2]  J V Hajnal,et al.  An investigation into the use of sensitivity‐encoded techniques to increase temporal resolution in dynamic contrast‐enhanced breast imaging , 2001, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[3]  A. Haase,et al.  Rapid NMR imaging of dynamic processes using the FLASII technique , 1986, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[4]  D J Pennell,et al.  Reduction in sample size for studies of remodeling in heart failure by the use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance. , 2000, Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[5]  O. Simonetti,et al.  Cine MR angiography of the heart with segmented true fast imaging with steady-state precession. , 2001, Radiology.

[6]  R. Semelka,et al.  MR imaging abbreviations, definitions, and descriptions: a review. , 1999, Radiology.

[7]  D. Pennell,et al.  Comparison of interstudy reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance with two-dimensional echocardiography in normal subjects and in patients with heart failure or left ventricular hypertrophy. , 2002, The American journal of cardiology.

[8]  S. Plein,et al.  Steady‐state free precession magnetic resonance imaging of the heart: Comparison with segmented k‐space gradient‐echo imaging , 2001, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[9]  J. Groen,et al.  Fast Field Echo imaging: an overview and contrast calculations. , 1988, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[10]  D. Pennell,et al.  Breath-hold FLASH and FISP cardiovascular MR imaging: left ventricular volume differences and reproducibility. , 2002, Radiology.

[11]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[12]  K P Pruessmann,et al.  Sensitivity encoded cardiac MRI. , 2001, Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[13]  J. Cuppen,et al.  Very fast MR imaging by field echoes and small angle excitation. , 1985, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[14]  V L Morgan,et al.  Normal human right and left ventricular mass, systolic function, and gender differences by cine magnetic resonance imaging. , 1999, Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.