Role of Free-Breathing Motion-Corrected Late Gadolinium Enhancement Technique for Image Quality Assessment and LGE Quantification.

Yunfei Yu,Yinyin Chen,Shihai Zhao,Meiying Ge,Shan Yang,Hong Yun,Xiaoming Bi,Caixia Fu,Mengsu Zeng,Hang Jin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109510
IF: 4.531
2021-01-01
European Journal of Radiology
Abstract:Objective: To compare the image quality and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) quantification between free-breathing motion-corrected and conventional breath-hold LGE method in a variety of cardiovascular diseases. Materials and Methods: 149 consecutive patients underwent contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance examination employing both free-breathing motion-corrected LGE and conventional breath-hold LGE method. Scan time, contrast-to-noise ratio, overall image quality score and LGE mass were measured and analyzed statistically. Results: Free-breathing motion-corrected LGE method had a shorter scan time and higher overall image quality score in comparison with conventional breath-hold LGE method (p < 0.001). Univariate/multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that breath-holding difficulty, high heart rate and arrhythmia could be predictive factors possibly for an inferior image quality score (p < 0.05 for all). The contrast-to-noise ratios of free-breathing motion-corrected LGE images were higher than those of conventional breath-hold LGE images (p < 0.001). In the cases with subepicardial and/or transmural myocardial enhancement, the measured LGE masses were larger on free-breathing motion-corrected LGE images in comparison with those on conventional breath-hold LGE images (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Free-breathing motion-corrected LGE could be a better choice for patients who need contrast-enhanced cardiac MRI and have one or more of the risk factors for an inferior image quality score, including breath-holding difficulty, high heart rate and arrhythmia. However, an overestimation of LGE mass on free-breathing motion-corrected LGE image should be taken into consideration when LGE pattern involves subepicardial and/or transmural myocardium.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?