Robison Sean, Hong KyungPyo, Kim Daniel, Lloyd Rachel, Ramchand Jay, Hornsey Emma, Srivastava Piyush, Smith Gerard, Kearney Leighton, Lim Ruth
Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
Department of Cardiology, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne.
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2018 Sep-Oct;42(5):732-738. doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000746.
The aim of this study was to compare the performance of arrhythmia-insensitive rapid (AIR) and modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) T1 mapping in patients with cardiomyopathies.
In 58 patients referred for clinical cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T, we compared MOLLI and AIR native and postcontrast T1 measurements. Two readers independently analyzed myocardial and blood T1 values. Agreement between techniques, interreader agreement per technique, and intrascan agreement per technique were evaluated.
The MOLLI and AIR T1 values were strongly correlated (r = 0.98); however, statistically significantly different T1 values were derived (bias 80 milliseconds, pooled data, P < 0.01). Both techniques demonstrated high repeatability (MOLLI, r = 1.00 and coefficient of repeatability [CR] = 72 milliseconds; AIR, r = 0.99 and CR = 184.2 milliseconds) and produced high interreader agreement (MOLLI, r = 1.00 and CR = 51.7 milliseconds; AIR, r = 0.99 and CR = 183.5 milliseconds).
Arrhythmia-insensitive rapid and MOLLI sequences produced significantly different T1 values in a diverse patient cohort.
本研究旨在比较心律失常不敏感快速（AIR）和改良Look-Locker反转恢复（MOLLI）T1映射在心肌病患者中的表现。
在58例因临床心脏磁共振成像转诊至1.5T的患者中，我们比较了MOLLI和AIR的平扫及增强后T1测量值。两名阅片者独立分析心肌和血液的T1值。评估了技术之间的一致性、每种技术的阅片者间一致性以及每种技术的扫描内一致性。
MOLLI和AIR的T1值高度相关（r = 0.98）；然而，得出的T1值在统计学上有显著差异（偏差80毫秒，汇总数据，P < 0.01）。两种技术均显示出高重复性（MOLLI，r = 1.00，重复性系数[CR] = 72毫秒；AIR，r = 0.99，CR = 184.2毫秒），并且阅片者间一致性高（MOLLI，r = 1.00，CR = 51.7毫秒；AIR，r = 0.99，CR = 183.5毫秒）。
在不同患者队列中，心律失常不敏感快速序列和MOLLI序列产生的T1值有显著差异。
