4.7 Article

Rapid evaluation of left ventricular volume and mass without breath-holding using real-time interactive cardiac magnetic resonance imaging system

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01399-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to validate cardiac measurements derived from real-time cardiac magnetic resonance imaging ((MRI) as compared with well-validated conventional cine MRI. BACKGROUND Although cardiac MRI provides accurate assessment of left ventricular (LV) volume and mass, most techniques have been relatively slow and required electrocardiogram (ECG) gating over many heart beats. A newly developed real-time MRI system allows continuous real-time dynamic acquisition and display without cardiac gating or breath-holding. METHODS Fourteen healthy volunteers and nine patients with heart failure underwent real-time and tine MRI in the standard short-axis orientation with a 1.5T MRI scanner. Nonbreath-holding tine MRI was performed with ECG gating and respiratory compensation. Left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricular endsystolic volume (LVESV), ejection fraction (EF) and LV mass calculated from the images obtained by real-time MRI were compared to those obtained by tine MRI. RESULTS The total study time including localization for real-time MRI was significantly shorter than tine MRI (8.6 +/- 2.3 vs. 24.7 +/- 3.5 min, p < 0.001). Both imaging techniques yielded good quality images allowing cardiac measurements. The measurements of LVEDV, LVESV, EF and LV mass obtained with real-time MRI showed close correlation with those obtained with tine MRI (LVEDV: r = 0.985, p < 0.001; LVESV: r = 0.994, p < 0.001; EF: r = 0.975, p < 0.001; LV mass: r = 0.977, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Real-time MRI provides accurate measurements of LV volume and mass in a time-efficient manner with respect to image acquisition. (J Am Loll Cardiol 2001;38:527-33) (C) 2001 by the American College of Cardiology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据