Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1168-1178 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| Publication status | Published - 12 Oct 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.
Keywords
- cardiac T-mapping, cardiovascular magnetic resonance, reproducibility
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Medicine(all)
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 44, No. 5, 12.10.2016, p. 1168-1178.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
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 -