A comparison of methods for T2-mapping of the myocardium
- PDF / 796,855 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 610 x 792 pts Page_size
- 80 Downloads / 219 Views
BioMed Central
Open Access
Poster presentation
A comparison of methods for T2-mapping of the myocardium Jeff A Stainsby*1, Venkat Ramanan2, Glenn S Slavin3 and Graham A Wright2 Address: 1GE Healthcare, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada and 3GE Healthcare, Bethesda, USA * Corresponding author
from 13th Annual SCMR Scientific Sessions Phoenix, AZ, USA. 21-24 January 2010 Published: 21 January 2010 Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2010, 12(Suppl 1):P227
doi:10.1186/1532-429X-12-S1-P227
Abstracts of the 13th Annual SCMR Scientific Sessions - 2010
Meeting abstracts - A single PDF containing all abstracts in this Supplement is available here. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/files/pdf/1532-429X-11-S1-infoThis abstract is available from: http://jcmr-online.com/content/12/S1/P227 © 2010 Stainsby et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Introduction T2-weighted imaging in acute myocardial infarction has been suggested for detecting regions of edema. The need to carefully account for variations in coil sensitivity patterns has been noted with these techniques. An alternate approach is to generate quantitative T2 maps. In this work we compare 3 different myocardial T2 mapping methods; multi-echo double-IR FSE (MEFSE), segmented T2-prepared SSFP (T2pSSFP) similar to [1] and T2-prepared spiral (SpiralT2) [2].
quantitative comparisons, regions of interest encompassing the myocardium on each slice were drawn manually and T2 values computed using a 2-parameter or a 3parameter (including a baseline offset) exponential fit.
Results Example T2 maps from a representative volunteer are given in Figure 1. Quantitative T2 measurement results are illustrated in Figure 2. Mean T2's from each of 3 slices are grouped for all 4 subjects and all 3 techniques in Figure 2.
Methods
Discussion/conclusion
Details for each sequence are as follows:
Two parameter fits generally had less inter- and intra-subject variability but with higher values than 3-parameter fits. This may be attributed to noise and fitting bias, suboptimal TE's, and B1-errors. MEFSE had the highest source image signal-to-noise and least in-slice T2 variability, but with the highest inter-subject T2 variability. T2pSSFP and SpiralT2 had higher in-slice T2 variability with T2pSSFP variations dominated by noise contributions and SpiralT2 by regions affected by residual blur. These 3 mapping techniques have unique strengths and weaknesses. This suggests that the specific requirements of the application may dictate which technique to use. Further investigation of these in the context of clinical applications, such as identification of myocardial edema, is being explored.
MEFSE 256 × 256 matrix, 34 × 27 cm FOV, ASSET × 2, etl = 32, 62.5 kHz RBW, total scan time of 16 heart-beats for one slice. T2pSSFP 256 × 128, 34 × 34 cm FOV, ASSET × 2, 2NEX with RF chopping via an inversion pulse on even excitations to preserve image contrast, VPS = 32, total scan time of 16 heart-beats for 3 slices. SpiralT2 12 spiral in
Data Loading...
