Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Philips Healthcare, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Magn Reson Imaging. 2024 Sep;111:15-20. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2024.04.001. Epub 2024 Apr 3.
In patients who have difficulty holding their breath, a free breathing (FB) respiratory-triggered (RT) bSSFP cine technique may be used. However, this technique may have inferior image quality and a longer scan time than breath-hold (BH) bSSFP cine acquisitions. This study examined the effect of an audiovisual breathing guidance (BG) system on RT bSSFP cine image quality, scan time, and ventricular measurements.
This study evaluated a BG system that provides audiovisual instructions and feedback on the timing of inspiration and expiration to the patient during image acquisition using input from the respiratory bellows to guide them toward a regular breathing pattern with extended end-expiration. In this single-center prospective study in patients undergoing a clinical cardiac magnetic resonance examination, a ventricular short-axis stack of bSSFP cine images was acquired using 3 techniques in each patient: 1) FB and RT (FBRT), 2) BG system and RT (BGRT), and 3) BH. The 3 acquisitions were compared for image quality metrics (endocardial edge definition, motion artifact, and blood-to-myocardial contrast) scored on a Likert scale, scan time, and ventricular volumes and mass.
Thirty-two patients (19 females; median age 21 years, IQR 18-32) completed the study protocol. For scan time, BGRT was faster than FBRT (163 s vs. 345 s, p < 0.001). Endocardial edge definition, motion artifact, and blood-to-myocardial contrast were all better for BGRT than FBRT (p < 0.001). Left ventricular (LV) end-systolic volume (ESV) was smaller (3%, p = 0.02) and LV ejection fraction (EF) was larger (0.5%, p = 0.003) with BGRT than with FBRT. There was no significant difference in LV end-diastolic volume (EDV), LV mass, right ventricular (RV) EDV, RV ESV, and RV EF. Scan times were shorter for BGRT compared to BH. Endocardial edge definition and blood-to-myocardial contrast were better for BH than BGRT. Compared to BH, the LV EDV, LV ESV, RV EDV, and RV ESV were mildly smaller (all differences <7%) for BGRT.
The addition of a BG system to RT bSSFP cine acquisitions decreased the scan time and improved image quality. Further exploration of this BG approach is warranted in more diverse populations and with other free breathing sequences.
在无法屏气的患者中,可以使用自由呼吸(FB)触发(RT)bSSFP 电影技术。然而,与屏气(BH)bSSFP 电影采集相比,该技术的图像质量可能较差,扫描时间也较长。本研究探讨了视听呼吸引导(BG)系统对 RT bSSFP 电影图像质量、扫描时间和心室测量的影响。
本研究评估了一种 BG 系统,该系统在使用呼吸波纹管输入进行图像采集时,向患者提供关于吸气和呼气时机的视听说明和反馈,以引导他们进行有规律的呼吸模式,并延长呼气末期。在这项对接受临床心脏磁共振检查的患者进行的单中心前瞻性研究中,使用 3 种技术在每位患者中采集 bSSFP 电影的心室短轴堆栈:1)FB 和 RT(FBRT),2)BG 系统和 RT(BGRT),和 3)BH。比较 3 种采集方法的图像质量指标(心内膜边缘定义、运动伪影和血液与心肌对比度)的评分(Likert 量表)、扫描时间以及心室容积和质量。
32 名患者(19 名女性;中位年龄 21 岁,IQR 18-32)完成了研究方案。扫描时间方面,BGRT 快于 FBRT(163s 比 345s,p<0.001)。BGRT 的心内膜边缘定义、运动伪影和血液与心肌对比度均优于 FBRT(p<0.001)。与 FBRT 相比,BGRT 的左心室(LV)收缩末期容积(ESV)更小(3%,p=0.02),LV 射血分数(EF)更大(0.5%,p=0.003)。LV 舒张末期容积(EDV)、LV 质量、右心室(RV)EDV、RV ESV 和 RV EF 无显著差异。与 BH 相比,BGRT 的扫描时间更短。BH 的心内膜边缘定义和血液与心肌对比度优于 BGRT。与 BH 相比,BGRT 的 LV EDV、LV ESV、RV EDV 和 RV ESV 略小(所有差异<7%)。
在 RT bSSFP 电影采集时添加 BG 系统可缩短扫描时间并改善图像质量。需要在更多样化的人群中进一步探索这种 BG 方法,并应用于其他自由呼吸序列。