These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Real-time fast strain-encoded magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate regional myocardial function at 3.0 Tesla: comparison to conventional tagging.
    Author: Korosoglou G, Youssef AA, Bilchick KC, Ibrahim el-S, Lardo AC, Lai S, Osman NF.
    Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging; 2008 May; 27(5):1012-8. PubMed ID: 18407541.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare the utility of the real-time technique fast strain-encoded magnetic resonance imaging (fast-SENC) for the quantification of regional myocardial function to conventional tagged magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthy volunteers (N = 12) and patients with heart failure (N = 7) were examined using tagged MRI and fast-SENC at 3.0T. Circumferential strain was measured using fast-SENC in six endo- and six subepicardial regions in the basal-, mid-, and apical-septum and the basal-, mid-, and apical-lateral wall from the four-chamber view. These measurements were plotted to tagging, in corresponding myocardial segments. RESULTS: Peak systolic strain (Ecc) and early diastolic strain rate (Ecc/second) acquired by fast-SENC correlated closely to tagged MRI (r = 0.90 for Ecc and r = 0.91 for Ecc/second, P < 0.001 for both). Both fast-SENC and tagging identified differences in regional systolic and diastolic function between normal myocardium and dysfunctional segments in patients with heart failure (for fast-SENC: Ecc = -21.7 +/- 2.7 in healthy volunteers vs. -12.8 +/- 4.2 in hypokinetic vs. 0.6 +/- 3.8 in akinetic/dyskinetic segments, P < 0.001 between all; Ecc/second = 104 +/- 20/second in healthy volunteers vs. 37 +/- 9/second in hypokinetic vs. -16 +/- 15/second in akinetic/dyskinetic segments, P < 0.001 between all). Quantitative analysis was more time-consuming for conventional tagging than for fast-SENC (time-spent of 3.8 +/- 0.7 minutes vs. 9.5 +/- 0.7 minutes per patient, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Fast-SENC allows the rapid and accurate quantification of regional myocardial function. The information derived from fast-SENC during a single heartbeat seems to be superior or equal to that acquired by conventional tagging during several heart cycles and prolonged breathholds.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]