Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Magn Reson Imaging ; 2018 Feb 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29446527

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Binary threshold-based quantification techniques ignore myocardial infarct (MI) heterogeneity, yielding substantial misquantification of MI. PURPOSE: To assess the technical feasibility of MI quantification using percent infarct mapping (PIM), a prototype nonbinary algorithm, in patients with suspected MI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective cohort POPULATION: Patients (n = 171) with suspected MI referred for cardiac MRI. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Inversion recovery balanced steady-state free-precession for late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) T1 -mapping on a 1.5T system. ASSESSMENT: Infarct volume (IV) and infarct fraction (IF) were quantified by two observers based on manual delineation, binary approaches (2-5 standard deviations [SD] and full-width at half-maximum [FWHM] thresholds) in LGE images, and by applying the PIM algorithm in T1 and LGE images (PIMT1 ; PIMLGE ). STATISTICAL TEST: IV and IF were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Agreement between the approaches was determined with Bland-Altman analysis. Interobserver agreement was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis. RESULTS: MI was observed in 89 (54.9%) patients, and 185 (38%) short-axis slices. IF with 2, 3, 4, 5SDs and FWHM techniques were 15.7 ± 6.6, 13.4 ± 5.6, 11.6 ± 5.0, 10.8 ± 5.2, and 10.0 ± 5.2%, respectively. The 5SD and FWHM techniques had the best agreement with manual IF (9.9 ± 4.8%) determination (bias 1.0 and 0.2%; P = 0.1426 and P = 0.8094, respectively). The 2SD and 3SD algorithms significantly overestimated manual IF (9.9 ± 4.8%; both P < 0.0001). PIMLGE measured significantly lower IF (7.8 ± 3.7%) compared to manual values (P < 0.0001). PIMLGE , however, showed the best agreement with the PIMT1 reference (7.6 ± 3.6%, P = 0.3156). Interobserver agreement was rated good to excellent for IV (ICCs between 0.727-0.820) and fair to good for IF (0.589-0.736). DATA CONCLUSION: The application of the PIMLGE technique for MI quantification in patients is feasible. PIMLGE , with its ability to account for voxelwise MI content, provides significantly smaller IF than any thresholding technique and shows excellent agreement with the T1 -based reference. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA