4.5 Article

Pulmonary Vein Inflow Artifact Reduction for Free-Breathing Left Atrium Late Gadolinium Enhancement

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 66, Issue 1, Pages 180-186

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.22769

Keywords

atrial fibrillation; pulmonary vein imaging; late gadolinium enhancement; respiratory motion tracking; projection navigator

Funding

  1. NIH [R01EB008743-01A2, UL1 RR025758-01]
  2. ANA [SDG-0730339N]
  3. Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center
  4. National Center for Research Resources
  5. NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two-dimensional pencil-beam navigator, placed on the right hemidiaphragm, is used for free-breathing late gadolinium enhancement of the left atrium in patients with atrial fibrillation. The pencil-beam navigator creates an inflow artifact in the right pulmonary veins and atrial wall that may obscure local pulmonary vein and left atrium scars. To reduce this artifact, we propose a large slab right hemidiaphragm projection navigator that measures the respiratory motion while reducing the associated inflow artifact. Eighteen subjects underwent pulmonary vein late gadolinium enhancement using the pencil-beam and projection navigator. Subjective inflow and respiratory motion artifact scores (1 = severe, 2 = moderate, 3 = mild, and 4 = none) from two blinded readers were compared. The artifact scores were 3.8 +/- 0.4 and 2.1 +/- 0.7 for the projection and pencil-beam navigators, respectively (P < 0.001). Respiratory motion artifact scores were similar between the two techniques (3.0 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.1 +/- 0.5 for projection vs. pencil-beam navigator). The proposed method greatly reduces the inflow artifact in free-breathing pulmonary vein late gadolinium enhancement while allowing adequate respiratory motion compensation. Magn Reson Med 66:180-186, 2011. (C) 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available