The impact of audiovisual breathing guidance on respiratory-triggered cardiac magnetic resonance cine imaging.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging Cine imaging Motion compensation Respiratory motion

Journal

Magnetic resonance imaging
ISSN: 1873-5894
Titre abrégé: Magn Reson Imaging
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8214883

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 05 09 2023
revised: 15 03 2024
accepted: 02 04 2024
medline: 6 4 2024
pubmed: 6 4 2024
entrez: 5 4 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

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.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
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.
METHODS METHODS
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.
RESULTS RESULTS
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.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38579974
pii: S0730-725X(24)00107-3
doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2024.04.001
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest Jihye Jang and Annerieke Heuvelink-Marck are employees of Philips. Other authors have no competing interests relevant to this article to disclose.

Auteurs

Daniel A Castellanos (DA)

Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: daniel.castellanos@cardio.chboston.org.

Jihye Jang (J)

Philips Healthcare, Gainesville, FL, USA.

David N Schidlow (DN)

Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Kinsey Brassaw (K)

Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Stephanie Agudelo (S)

Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Annerieke Heuvelink-Marck (A)

Philips Research, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Stuart R Lipsitz (SR)

Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Andrew J Powell (AJ)

Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Classifications MeSH