MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Browser Search

Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

Title: T1 mapping for myocardial extracellular volume measurement by CMR: bolus only versus primed infusion technique.
Author: White SK, Sado DM, Fontana M, Banypersad SM, Maestrini V, Flett AS, Piechnik SK, Robson MD, Hausenloy DJ, Sheikh AM, Hawkins PN, Moon JC.
Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging; 2013 Sep; 6(9):955-62. PubMed ID: 23582361.
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of the contrast "bolus only" T1 mapping cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) technique for measuring myocardial extracellular volume fraction (ECV). BACKGROUND: Myocardial ECV can be measured with T1 mapping before and after contrast agent if the contrast agent distribution between blood/myocardium is at equilibrium. Equilibrium distribution can be achieved with a primed contrast infusion (equilibrium contrast-CMR [EQ-CMR]) or might be approximated by the dynamic equilibration achieved by delayed post-bolus measurement. This bolus only approach is highly attractive, but currently limited data support its use. We compared the bolus only technique with 2 independent standards: collagen volume fraction (CVF) from myocardial biopsy in aortic stenosis (AS); and the infusion technique in 5 representative conditions. METHODS: One hundred forty-seven subjects were studied: healthy volunteers (n = 50); hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n = 25); severe AS (n = 22); amyloid (n = 20); and chronic myocardial infarction (n = 30). Bolus only (at 15 min) and infusion ECV measurements were performed and compared. In 18 subjects with severe AS the results were compared with histological CVF. RESULTS: The ECV by both techniques correlated with histological CVF (n = 18, r² = 0.69, p < 0.01 vs. r² = 0.71, p < 0.01, p = 0.42 for comparison). Across health and disease, there was strong correlation between the techniques (r² = 0.97). However, in diseases of high ECV (amyloid, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy late gadolinium enhancement, and infarction), Bland-Altman analysis indicates the bolus only technique has a consistent and increasing offset, giving a higher value for ECVs above 0.4 (mean difference ± limit of agreement for ECV <0.4 = -0.004 ± 0.037 vs. ECV >0.4 = 0.040 ± 0.075, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bolus only, T1 mapping-derived ECV measurement is sufficient for ECV measurement across a range of cardiac diseases, and this approach is histologically validated in AS. However, when ECV is >0.4, the bolus only technique consistently measures ECV higher compared with infusion.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]