Репозиторий Университета

Comparison between conventional and compressed sensing cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance for feature tracking global circumferential strain assessment

  • Kido T.
  • Hirai K.
  • Ogawa R.
  • Tanabe Y.
  • Nakamura M.
  • Kawaguchi N.
  • Kurata A.
  • Watanabe K.
  • Schmidt M.
  • Forman C.
  • Mochizuki T.
  • Kido T.
Дата публикации:01.12.2021
Журнал: Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
БД: Scopus
Ссылка: Scopus


© 2021, The Author(s). Background: Feature tracking (FT) has become an established tool for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-based strain analysis. Recently, the compressed sensing (CS) technique has been applied to cine CMR, which has drastically reduced its acquisition time. However, the effects of CS imaging on FT strain analysis need to be carefully studied. This study aimed to investigate the use of CS cine CMR for FT strain analysis compared to conventional cine CMR. Methods: Sixty-five patients with different left ventricular (LV) pathologies underwent both retrospective conventional cine CMR and prospective CS cine CMR using a prototype sequence with the comparable temporal and spatial resolution at 3 T. Eight short-axis cine images covering the entire LV were obtained and used for LV volume assessment and FT strain analysis. Prospective CS cine CMR data over 1.5 heartbeats were acquired to capture the complete end-diastolic data between the first and second heartbeats. LV volume assessment and FT strain analysis were performed using a dedicated software (ci42; Circle Cardiovasacular Imaging, Calgary, Canada), and the global circumferential strain (GCS) and GCS rate were calculated from both cine CMR sequences. Results: There were no significant differences in the GCS (− 17.1% [− 11.7, − 19.5] vs. − 16.1% [− 11.9, − 19.3; p = 0.508) and GCS rate (− 0.8 [− 0.6, − 1.0] vs. − 0.8 [− 0.7, − 1.0]; p = 0.587) obtained using conventional and CS cine CMR. The GCS obtained using both methods showed excellent agreement (y = 0.99x − 0.24; r = 0.95; p < 0.001). The Bland–Altman analysis revealed that the mean difference in the GCS between the conventional and CS cine CMR was 0.1% with limits of agreement between -2.8% and 3.0%. No significant differences were found in all LV volume assessment between both types of cine CMR. Conclusion: CS cine CMR could be used for GCS assessment by CMR-FT as well as conventional cine CMR. This finding further enhances the clinical utility of high-speed CS cine CMR imaging.

Вернуться назад