Limits...
Assessment of myocardial strain using strain-encoding (SENC) MRI: comparison of acquisition strategies

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

In typical SENC sequence, k-space data is acquired line-by-line in rectilinear fashion, which results in long scan-time and renders the technique impractical for many applications... Nevertheless, fast imaging techniques, e.g. Radial or Spiral acquisition, allow for reducing scan time while maintaining adequate image quality... In this work, Radial and Spiral acquisitions were implemented in SENC for improved performance... The developed sequences were tested on volunteers and the results were evaluated and compared to standard Cartesian acquisition... The three sequences were optimized for the fixed scan-time... All the differences lied within the ±2SD limit... Data acquisition strategy (k-space trajectory) affects scan-time and the resulting image-quality in SENC... Image quality was similar in Cartesian and Radial... Less radial spokes can be acquired to reduce scan-time without much affecting image-quality... High spatial-resolution would allow for accurate measurements in small structures, e.g. thinning myocardial wall, or it can be traded for faster or real-time imaging... The choice of the acquisition-technique depends on patient condition, available scan-time, and imaging features of importance.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

SENC two-chamber images from Cartesian (left), Radial (middle), and Spiral (right) acquisitions showing circumferential strain at end-systole. Carteseian and Radial show similar image quality, while Spiral shows superior resolution. All images show similar contracting pattern in the heart. The arrows point to part of the apical wall showing low strain, which showed in all images.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3106546&req=5

Figure 2: SENC two-chamber images from Cartesian (left), Radial (middle), and Spiral (right) acquisitions showing circumferential strain at end-systole. Carteseian and Radial show similar image quality, while Spiral shows superior resolution. All images show similar contracting pattern in the heart. The arrows point to part of the apical wall showing low strain, which showed in all images.

Mentions: Figure-2 shows example of the acquired SENC images. The strain values measured at the same position were similar in different images, as shown in the strain curves in Figure-3. The Bland-Altman analysis showed no bias between strain measurements from different acquisitions (Figure-4). The mean±SD of the (circumferential) strain differences were 0.42±2.46 and -0.25±1.76 % for the Radial-Cartesian and Spiral-Cartesian differences, respectively. All the differences lied within the ±2SD limit.


Assessment of myocardial strain using strain-encoding (SENC) MRI: comparison of acquisition strategies
SENC two-chamber images from Cartesian (left), Radial (middle), and Spiral (right) acquisitions showing circumferential strain at end-systole. Carteseian and Radial show similar image quality, while Spiral shows superior resolution. All images show similar contracting pattern in the heart. The arrows point to part of the apical wall showing low strain, which showed in all images.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3106546&req=5

Figure 2: SENC two-chamber images from Cartesian (left), Radial (middle), and Spiral (right) acquisitions showing circumferential strain at end-systole. Carteseian and Radial show similar image quality, while Spiral shows superior resolution. All images show similar contracting pattern in the heart. The arrows point to part of the apical wall showing low strain, which showed in all images.
Mentions: Figure-2 shows example of the acquired SENC images. The strain values measured at the same position were similar in different images, as shown in the strain curves in Figure-3. The Bland-Altman analysis showed no bias between strain measurements from different acquisitions (Figure-4). The mean±SD of the (circumferential) strain differences were 0.42±2.46 and -0.25±1.76 % for the Radial-Cartesian and Spiral-Cartesian differences, respectively. All the differences lied within the ±2SD limit.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

In typical SENC sequence, k-space data is acquired line-by-line in rectilinear fashion, which results in long scan-time and renders the technique impractical for many applications... Nevertheless, fast imaging techniques, e.g. Radial or Spiral acquisition, allow for reducing scan time while maintaining adequate image quality... In this work, Radial and Spiral acquisitions were implemented in SENC for improved performance... The developed sequences were tested on volunteers and the results were evaluated and compared to standard Cartesian acquisition... The three sequences were optimized for the fixed scan-time... All the differences lied within the ±2SD limit... Data acquisition strategy (k-space trajectory) affects scan-time and the resulting image-quality in SENC... Image quality was similar in Cartesian and Radial... Less radial spokes can be acquired to reduce scan-time without much affecting image-quality... High spatial-resolution would allow for accurate measurements in small structures, e.g. thinning myocardial wall, or it can be traded for faster or real-time imaging... The choice of the acquisition-technique depends on patient condition, available scan-time, and imaging features of importance.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus