Hamilton Jesse I, Pahwa Shivani, Adedigba Joseph, Frankel Samuel, O'Connor Gregory, Thomas Rahul, Walker Jonathan R, Killinc Ozden, Lo Wei-Ching, Batesole Joshua, Margevicius Seunghee, Griswold Mark, Rajagopalan Sanjay, Gulani Vikas, Seiberlich Nicole
Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 Oct;52(4):1044-1052. doi: 10.1002/jmri.27155. Epub 2020 Mar 28.
Cardiac MR fingerprinting (cMRF) is a novel technique for simultaneous T and T mapping.
To compare T /T measurements, repeatability, and map quality between cMRF and standard mapping techniques in healthy subjects.
Prospective.
In all, 58 subjects (ages 18-60). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: cMRF, modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI), and T -prepared balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) at 1.5T.
T /T values were measured in 16 myocardial segments at apical, medial, and basal slice positions. Test-retest and intrareader repeatability were assessed for the medial slice. cMRF and conventional mapping sequences were compared using ordinal and two alternative forced choice (2AFC) ratings.
Paired t-tests, Bland-Altman analyses, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), linear regression, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and binomial tests.
Average T measurements were: basal 1007.4±96.5 msec (cMRF), 990.0±45.3 msec (MOLLI); medial 995.0±101.7 msec (cMRF), 995.6±59.7 msec (MOLLI); apical 1006.6±111.2 msec (cMRF); and 981.6±87.6 msec (MOLLI). Average T measurements were: basal 40.9±7.0 msec (cMRF), 46.1±3.5 msec (bSSFP); medial 41.0±6.4 msec (cMRF), 47.4±4.1 msec (bSSFP); apical 43.5±6.7 msec (cMRF), 48.0±4.0 msec (bSSFP). A statistically significant bias (cMRF T larger than MOLLI T ) was observed in basal (17.4 msec) and apical (25.0 msec) slices. For T , a statistically significant bias (cMRF lower than bSSFP) was observed for basal (-5.2 msec), medial (-6.3 msec), and apical (-4.5 msec) slices. Precision was lower for cMRF-the average of the standard deviation measured within each slice was 102 msec for cMRF vs. 61 msec for MOLLI T , and 6.4 msec for cMRF vs. 4.0 msec for bSSFP T . cMRF and conventional techniques had similar test-retest repeatability as quantified by ICC (0.87 cMRF vs. 0.84 MOLLI for T ; 0.85 cMRF vs. 0.85 bSSFP for T ). In the ordinal image quality comparison, cMRF maps scored higher than conventional sequences for both T (all five features) and T (four features).
This work reports on myocardial T /T measurements in healthy subjects using cMRF and standard mapping sequences. cMRF had slightly lower precision, similar test-retest and intrareader repeatability, and higher scores for map quality.
2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:1044-1052.
心脏磁共振指纹识别（cMRF）是一种用于同时进行T1和T2*映射的新技术。
比较健康受试者中cMRF与标准映射技术之间的T1/T2*测量值、重复性和映射质量。
前瞻性研究。
共58名受试者（年龄18 - 60岁）。
场强/序列：1.5T下的cMRF、改良Look-Locker反转恢复序列（MOLLI）和T2*准备的平衡稳态自由进动序列（bSSFP）。
在心底、中间和心尖层面的16个心肌节段测量T1/T2*值。对中间层面进行重测和阅片者内重复性评估。使用有序和两种替代强制选择（2AFC）评分比较cMRF和传统映射序列。
配对t检验、Bland-Altman分析、组内相关系数（ICC）、线性回归、单因素方差分析（ANOVA）和二项式检验。
平均T1测量值为：心底层面（cMRF）1007.4±96.5毫秒，（MOLLI）990.0±45.3毫秒；中间层面（cMRF）995.0±101.7毫秒，（MOLLI）995.6±59.7毫秒；心尖层面（cMRF）1006.6±111.2毫秒，（MOLLI）981.6±87.6毫秒。平均T2测量值为：心底层面（cMRF）40.9±7.0毫秒，（bSSFP）46.1±3.5毫秒；中间层面（cMRF）41.0±6.4毫秒，（bSSFP）47.4±4.1毫秒；心尖层面（cMRF）43.5±6.7毫秒，（bSSFP）48.0±4.0毫秒。在心底（17.4毫秒）和心尖（25.0毫秒）层面观察到统计学上显著的偏差（cMRF的T1大于MOLLI的T1）。对于T2，在心底（-5.2毫秒）、中间（-6.3毫秒）和心尖（-4.5毫秒）层面观察到统计学上显著的偏差（cMRF低于bSSFP）。cMRF的精度较低——每个层面内测量的标准差平均值，cMRF的T1为102毫秒，MOLLI的T1为61毫秒，cMRF的T2为6.4毫秒，bSSFP的T2为4.0毫秒。cMRF和传统技术具有相似的重测重复性，通过ICC量化（T1方面，cMRF为0.87，MOLLI为0.84；T2方面，cMRF为0.85，bSSFP为0.85）。在有序图像质量比较中，cMRF映射在T1（所有五个特征）和T2（四个特征）方面的评分均高于传统序列。
本研究报告了使用cMRF和标准映射序列对健康受试者心肌T1/T2*的测量。cMRF的精度略低，重测和阅片者内重复性相似，且映射质量评分更高。
2级 技术效能：1级 《磁共振成像杂志》2020年；52:1044 - 1052。
