Visualization of coronary arteries in paediatric patients using whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography: comparison of image-navigation and the standard approach for respiratory motion compensation.
Adolescent
Artifacts
Child
Child, Preschool
Contrast Media
/ administration & dosage
Coronary Vessels
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Heart Defects, Congenital
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Infant
Magnetic Resonance Angiography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine
Male
Meglumine
/ administration & dosage
Organometallic Compounds
/ administration & dosage
Predictive Value of Tests
Reproducibility of Results
Respiration
Time Factors
Workflow
Coronary artery disease
Coronary magnetic resonance angiography
Image-based navigation
Respiratory motion compensation
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
ISSN: 1532-429X
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815616
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 02 2019
25 02 2019
Historique:
received:
09
10
2018
accepted:
05
02
2019
entrez:
26
2
2019
pubmed:
26
2
2019
medline:
29
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To investigate the use of respiratory motion compensation using image-based navigation (iNAV) with constant respiratory efficiency using single end-expiratory thresholding (CRUISE) for coronary magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA), and compare it to the conventional diaphragmatic navigator (dNAV) in paediatric patients with congenital or suspected heart disease. iNAV allowed direct tracking of the respiratory heart motion and was generated using balanced steady state free precession startup echoes. Respiratory gating was achieved using CRUISE with a fixed 50% efficiency. Whole-heart CMRA was acquired with 1.3 mm isotropic resolution. For comparison, CMRA with identical imaging parameters were acquired using dNAV. Scan time, visualization of coronary artery origins and mid-course, imaging quality and sharpness was compared between the two sequences. Forty patients (13 females; median weight: 44 kg; median age: 12.6, range: 3 months-17 years) were enrolled. 25 scans were performed in awake patients. A contrast agent was used in 22 patients. The scan time was significantly reduced using iNAV for awake patients (iNAV 7:48 ± 1:26 vs dNAV 9:48 ± 3:11, P = 0.01) but not for patients under general anaesthesia (iNAV = 6:55 ± 1:50 versus dNAV = 6:32 ± 2:16; P = 0.32). In 98% of the cases, iNAV image quality had an equal or higher score than dNAV. The visual score analysis showed a clear difference, favouring iNAV (P = 0.002). The right coronary artery and the left anterior descending vessel sharpness was significantly improved (iNAV: 56.8% ± 10.1% vs dNAV: 53.7% ± 9.9%, P < 0.002 and iNAV: 55.8% ± 8.6% vs dNAV: 53% ± 9.2%, P = 0.001, respectively). iNAV allows for a higher success-rate and clearer depiction of the mid-course of coronary arteries in paediatric patients. Its acquisition time is shorter in awake patients and image quality score is equal or superior to the conventional method in most cases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30798789
doi: 10.1186/s12968-019-0525-8
pii: 10.1186/s12968-019-0525-8
pmc: PMC6388473
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Organometallic Compounds
0
gadobutrol
1BJ477IO2L
Meglumine
6HG8UB2MUY
gadoterate meglumine
L0ND3981AG
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
13Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : WT 088641/Z/09/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : RE/08/03
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Radiology. 2009 Feb;250(2):331-51
pubmed: 19188310
Heart. 2017 Mar;103(5):341-346
pubmed: 27540181
Heart. 2010 Feb;96(4):269-74
pubmed: 19687017
Magn Reson Med. 2014 Jun;71(6):2118-26
pubmed: 23878103
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015 Jul 09;17:55
pubmed: 26156377
Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 May;38:129-137
pubmed: 28034638
BMC Med Imaging. 2018 Oct 16;18(1):36
pubmed: 30326847
Radiology. 1996 Jan;198(1):55-60
pubmed: 8539406
Magn Reson Med. 2013 Apr;69(4):1083-93
pubmed: 22648856
Magn Reson Med. 2017 May;77(5):1884-1893
pubmed: 27174673
Front Pediatr. 2017 Feb 27;5:36
pubmed: 28289674
Radiology. 1997 Jun;203(3):733-6
pubmed: 9169696
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Feb;29(2):320-7
pubmed: 19161183
N Engl J Med. 2001 Dec 27;345(26):1863-9
pubmed: 11756576
Radiology. 2012 May;263(2):547-54
pubmed: 22517963
Magn Reson Med. 2016 Nov;76(5):1345-1353
pubmed: 27455164
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Jan;79(1):416-422
pubmed: 28321900
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Nov;74(5):1306-16
pubmed: 25376772
Magn Reson Med. 2002 Oct;48(4):658-66
pubmed: 12353283
Magn Reson Med. 2005 Aug;54(2):476-80
pubmed: 16032682
Br J Radiol. 2012 May;85(1013):495-510
pubmed: 22253353
World J Cardiol. 2014 Oct 26;6(10):1060-6
pubmed: 25349650
Sensors (Basel). 2013 May 24;13(6):6882-99
pubmed: 23708271
Radiology. 2011 Apr;259(1):240-7
pubmed: 21325034
BMC Med Imaging. 2015 Oct 27;15:48
pubmed: 26502883
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Sep;26(3):624-9
pubmed: 17729350
Magn Reson Med. 2017 Aug;78(2):472-483
pubmed: 27529745
Circulation. 2004 Jul 13;110(2):163-9
pubmed: 15210590
Radiology. 2014 Feb;270(2):378-86
pubmed: 24471387
Magn Reson Med. 2012 Feb;67(2):437-45
pubmed: 21656563
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Apr;43(4):947-55
pubmed: 26451972