Reproducibility of three different cardiac T2-mapping sequences at 1.5T

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungPeer-Review

Autoren

  • Bettina Baeßler
  • Frank Schaarschmidt
  • Christian Stehning
  • Bernhard Schnackenburg
  • Agathe Giolda
  • David Maintz
  • Alexander C. Bunck

Organisationseinheiten

Externe Organisationen

  • Universität zu Köln
  • Philips HealthTech
Forschungs-netzwerk anzeigen

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Seiten (von - bis)1168-1178
Seitenumfang11
FachzeitschriftJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Jahrgang44
Ausgabenummer5
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 12 Okt. 2016

Abstract

Purpose: To elucidate the impact of technical and intraindividual reproducibility on the overall variability of myocardial T2 relaxation times. Materials and Methods: Thirty healthy volunteers were examined three times (day 1 morning/evening, evening after 2–3 weeks) at 1.5T. During each examination three different T2-mapping sequences were acquired twice at three slices in short axis view: multi-echo-spin-echo (MESE), T2-prepared balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) (T2prep), and gradient-spin-echo with and without fat saturation (GraSE/GraSEFS). Repeated measurements were performed for T2prep and GraSE. Segmented T2-maps were generated for each slice according to the American Heart Association (AHA) 16-segment model. Results: The coefficients of variation and intraclass correlation coefficients for intraobserver variability were: 1.3% and 0.89 for T2prep, 1.5% and 0.93 for GraSE, 3.1% and 0.83 for MESE; and for interobserver variability: 3.3% and 0.66 for T2prep, 2.0% and 0.83 for GraSE, 3.6% and 0.77 for MESE. No systematic difference of T2 times was observed due to diurnal effects and on long-term analysis using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey-type multiple comparisons (morning vs. evening scan for T2prep: 52.5 ± 2.4 vs. 51.7 ± 2.7 msec, P = 0.119; for GraSE: 58.6 ± 4.0 vs. 58.5 ± 3.8 msec, P = 0.984; for GraSEFS 57.1 ± 3.2 vs. 57.2 ± 3.9 msec, P = 0.998, and for MESE: 53.8 ± 2.7 vs. 53.3 ± 3.3 msec, P = 0.541; scans between weeks for T2prep: 51.7 ± 2.7 vs. 51.4 ± 2.4 msec, P = 0.873; for GraSE: 58.5 ± 3.8 vs. 58.1 ± 3.4 msec, P = 0.736; for GraSEFS: 57.2 ± 3.9 vs. 57.0 ± 4.6 msec, P = 0.964, and for MESE: 53.3 ± 3.3 vs. 53.4 ± 2.4 msec, P = 0.970). ANOVA components, however, demonstrated a greater variance of T2 times over multiple timepoints than for repeated measurements within the same scan (variance components of the model fit for intraday variance vs. repeated measurements: T2prep 2.22 vs. 1.36, GraSE 3.76 vs. 2.09, GraSEFS 3.96 vs. 1.58, MESE 1.86; and for interweeks variance vs. repeated measurements: T2prep 2.21 vs. 0.80, GraSE 3.20 vs. 2.10, GraSEFS 8.82 vs. 1.18, and MESE 4.49). Conclusion: Technical reproducibility and intra- and interobserver agreement of myocardial T2 relaxation times are excellent and intraindividual variation over time is small. Therefore, we consider subject-related factors to explain most of the interindividual variability of myocardial T2 times reported in previous studies. The acknowledgment of this subject-related, biological variability may be important for the future diagnostic value of T2-mapping. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1168–1178.

ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete

Zitieren

Reproducibility of three different cardiac T2-mapping sequences at 1.5T. / Baeßler, Bettina; Schaarschmidt, Frank; Stehning, Christian et al.
in: Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Jahrgang 44, Nr. 5, 12.10.2016, S. 1168-1178.

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungPeer-Review

Baeßler, B, Schaarschmidt, F, Stehning, C, Schnackenburg, B, Giolda, A, Maintz, D & Bunck, AC 2016, 'Reproducibility of three different cardiac T2-mapping sequences at 1.5T', Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Jg. 44, Nr. 5, S. 1168-1178. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25258
Baeßler, B., Schaarschmidt, F., Stehning, C., Schnackenburg, B., Giolda, A., Maintz, D., & Bunck, A. C. (2016). Reproducibility of three different cardiac T2-mapping sequences at 1.5T. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 44(5), 1168-1178. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25258
Baeßler B, Schaarschmidt F, Stehning C, Schnackenburg B, Giolda A, Maintz D et al. Reproducibility of three different cardiac T2-mapping sequences at 1.5T. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2016 Okt 12;44(5):1168-1178. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25258
Baeßler, Bettina ; Schaarschmidt, Frank ; Stehning, Christian et al. / Reproducibility of three different cardiac T2-mapping sequences at 1.5T. in: Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2016 ; Jahrgang 44, Nr. 5. S. 1168-1178.
Download
@article{5eff08076ec6416bae3ddd0ab74be8ae,
title = "Reproducibility of three different cardiac T2-mapping sequences at 1.5T",
abstract = "Purpose: To elucidate the impact of technical and intraindividual reproducibility on the overall variability of myocardial T2 relaxation times. Materials and Methods: Thirty healthy volunteers were examined three times (day 1 morning/evening, evening after 2–3 weeks) at 1.5T. During each examination three different T2-mapping sequences were acquired twice at three slices in short axis view: multi-echo-spin-echo (MESE), T2-prepared balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) (T2prep), and gradient-spin-echo with and without fat saturation (GraSE/GraSEFS). Repeated measurements were performed for T2prep and GraSE. Segmented T2-maps were generated for each slice according to the American Heart Association (AHA) 16-segment model. Results: The coefficients of variation and intraclass correlation coefficients for intraobserver variability were: 1.3% and 0.89 for T2prep, 1.5% and 0.93 for GraSE, 3.1% and 0.83 for MESE; and for interobserver variability: 3.3% and 0.66 for T2prep, 2.0% and 0.83 for GraSE, 3.6% and 0.77 for MESE. No systematic difference of T2 times was observed due to diurnal effects and on long-term analysis using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey-type multiple comparisons (morning vs. evening scan for T2prep: 52.5 ± 2.4 vs. 51.7 ± 2.7 msec, P = 0.119; for GraSE: 58.6 ± 4.0 vs. 58.5 ± 3.8 msec, P = 0.984; for GraSEFS 57.1 ± 3.2 vs. 57.2 ± 3.9 msec, P = 0.998, and for MESE: 53.8 ± 2.7 vs. 53.3 ± 3.3 msec, P = 0.541; scans between weeks for T2prep: 51.7 ± 2.7 vs. 51.4 ± 2.4 msec, P = 0.873; for GraSE: 58.5 ± 3.8 vs. 58.1 ± 3.4 msec, P = 0.736; for GraSEFS: 57.2 ± 3.9 vs. 57.0 ± 4.6 msec, P = 0.964, and for MESE: 53.3 ± 3.3 vs. 53.4 ± 2.4 msec, P = 0.970). ANOVA components, however, demonstrated a greater variance of T2 times over multiple timepoints than for repeated measurements within the same scan (variance components of the model fit for intraday variance vs. repeated measurements: T2prep 2.22 vs. 1.36, GraSE 3.76 vs. 2.09, GraSEFS 3.96 vs. 1.58, MESE 1.86; and for interweeks variance vs. repeated measurements: T2prep 2.21 vs. 0.80, GraSE 3.20 vs. 2.10, GraSEFS 8.82 vs. 1.18, and MESE 4.49). Conclusion: Technical reproducibility and intra- and interobserver agreement of myocardial T2 relaxation times are excellent and intraindividual variation over time is small. Therefore, we consider subject-related factors to explain most of the interindividual variability of myocardial T2 times reported in previous studies. The acknowledgment of this subject-related, biological variability may be important for the future diagnostic value of T2-mapping. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1168–1178.",
keywords = "cardiac T-mapping, cardiovascular magnetic resonance, reproducibility",
author = "Bettina Bae{\ss}ler and Frank Schaarschmidt and Christian Stehning and Bernhard Schnackenburg and Agathe Giolda and David Maintz and Bunck, {Alexander C.}",
year = "2016",
month = oct,
day = "12",
doi = "10.1002/jmri.25258",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "1168--1178",
journal = "Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging",
issn = "1053-1807",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "5",

}

Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reproducibility of three different cardiac T2-mapping sequences at 1.5T

AU - Baeßler, Bettina

AU - Schaarschmidt, Frank

AU - Stehning, Christian

AU - Schnackenburg, Bernhard

AU - Giolda, Agathe

AU - Maintz, David

AU - Bunck, Alexander C.

PY - 2016/10/12

Y1 - 2016/10/12

N2 - Purpose: To elucidate the impact of technical and intraindividual reproducibility on the overall variability of myocardial T2 relaxation times. Materials and Methods: Thirty healthy volunteers were examined three times (day 1 morning/evening, evening after 2–3 weeks) at 1.5T. During each examination three different T2-mapping sequences were acquired twice at three slices in short axis view: multi-echo-spin-echo (MESE), T2-prepared balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) (T2prep), and gradient-spin-echo with and without fat saturation (GraSE/GraSEFS). Repeated measurements were performed for T2prep and GraSE. Segmented T2-maps were generated for each slice according to the American Heart Association (AHA) 16-segment model. Results: The coefficients of variation and intraclass correlation coefficients for intraobserver variability were: 1.3% and 0.89 for T2prep, 1.5% and 0.93 for GraSE, 3.1% and 0.83 for MESE; and for interobserver variability: 3.3% and 0.66 for T2prep, 2.0% and 0.83 for GraSE, 3.6% and 0.77 for MESE. No systematic difference of T2 times was observed due to diurnal effects and on long-term analysis using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey-type multiple comparisons (morning vs. evening scan for T2prep: 52.5 ± 2.4 vs. 51.7 ± 2.7 msec, P = 0.119; for GraSE: 58.6 ± 4.0 vs. 58.5 ± 3.8 msec, P = 0.984; for GraSEFS 57.1 ± 3.2 vs. 57.2 ± 3.9 msec, P = 0.998, and for MESE: 53.8 ± 2.7 vs. 53.3 ± 3.3 msec, P = 0.541; scans between weeks for T2prep: 51.7 ± 2.7 vs. 51.4 ± 2.4 msec, P = 0.873; for GraSE: 58.5 ± 3.8 vs. 58.1 ± 3.4 msec, P = 0.736; for GraSEFS: 57.2 ± 3.9 vs. 57.0 ± 4.6 msec, P = 0.964, and for MESE: 53.3 ± 3.3 vs. 53.4 ± 2.4 msec, P = 0.970). ANOVA components, however, demonstrated a greater variance of T2 times over multiple timepoints than for repeated measurements within the same scan (variance components of the model fit for intraday variance vs. repeated measurements: T2prep 2.22 vs. 1.36, GraSE 3.76 vs. 2.09, GraSEFS 3.96 vs. 1.58, MESE 1.86; and for interweeks variance vs. repeated measurements: T2prep 2.21 vs. 0.80, GraSE 3.20 vs. 2.10, GraSEFS 8.82 vs. 1.18, and MESE 4.49). Conclusion: Technical reproducibility and intra- and interobserver agreement of myocardial T2 relaxation times are excellent and intraindividual variation over time is small. Therefore, we consider subject-related factors to explain most of the interindividual variability of myocardial T2 times reported in previous studies. The acknowledgment of this subject-related, biological variability may be important for the future diagnostic value of T2-mapping. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1168–1178.

AB - Purpose: To elucidate the impact of technical and intraindividual reproducibility on the overall variability of myocardial T2 relaxation times. Materials and Methods: Thirty healthy volunteers were examined three times (day 1 morning/evening, evening after 2–3 weeks) at 1.5T. During each examination three different T2-mapping sequences were acquired twice at three slices in short axis view: multi-echo-spin-echo (MESE), T2-prepared balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) (T2prep), and gradient-spin-echo with and without fat saturation (GraSE/GraSEFS). Repeated measurements were performed for T2prep and GraSE. Segmented T2-maps were generated for each slice according to the American Heart Association (AHA) 16-segment model. Results: The coefficients of variation and intraclass correlation coefficients for intraobserver variability were: 1.3% and 0.89 for T2prep, 1.5% and 0.93 for GraSE, 3.1% and 0.83 for MESE; and for interobserver variability: 3.3% and 0.66 for T2prep, 2.0% and 0.83 for GraSE, 3.6% and 0.77 for MESE. No systematic difference of T2 times was observed due to diurnal effects and on long-term analysis using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey-type multiple comparisons (morning vs. evening scan for T2prep: 52.5 ± 2.4 vs. 51.7 ± 2.7 msec, P = 0.119; for GraSE: 58.6 ± 4.0 vs. 58.5 ± 3.8 msec, P = 0.984; for GraSEFS 57.1 ± 3.2 vs. 57.2 ± 3.9 msec, P = 0.998, and for MESE: 53.8 ± 2.7 vs. 53.3 ± 3.3 msec, P = 0.541; scans between weeks for T2prep: 51.7 ± 2.7 vs. 51.4 ± 2.4 msec, P = 0.873; for GraSE: 58.5 ± 3.8 vs. 58.1 ± 3.4 msec, P = 0.736; for GraSEFS: 57.2 ± 3.9 vs. 57.0 ± 4.6 msec, P = 0.964, and for MESE: 53.3 ± 3.3 vs. 53.4 ± 2.4 msec, P = 0.970). ANOVA components, however, demonstrated a greater variance of T2 times over multiple timepoints than for repeated measurements within the same scan (variance components of the model fit for intraday variance vs. repeated measurements: T2prep 2.22 vs. 1.36, GraSE 3.76 vs. 2.09, GraSEFS 3.96 vs. 1.58, MESE 1.86; and for interweeks variance vs. repeated measurements: T2prep 2.21 vs. 0.80, GraSE 3.20 vs. 2.10, GraSEFS 8.82 vs. 1.18, and MESE 4.49). Conclusion: Technical reproducibility and intra- and interobserver agreement of myocardial T2 relaxation times are excellent and intraindividual variation over time is small. Therefore, we consider subject-related factors to explain most of the interindividual variability of myocardial T2 times reported in previous studies. The acknowledgment of this subject-related, biological variability may be important for the future diagnostic value of T2-mapping. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1168–1178.

KW - cardiac T-mapping

KW - cardiovascular magnetic resonance

KW - reproducibility

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84963668408&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jmri.25258

DO - 10.1002/jmri.25258

M3 - Article

C2 - 27043352

AN - SCOPUS:84963668408

VL - 44

SP - 1168

EP - 1178

JO - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

JF - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

SN - 1053-1807

IS - 5

ER -

Von denselben Autoren