Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26699850›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2015

Free-breathing myocardial T2* mapping using GRE-EPI and automatic non-rigid motion correction.

Ning Jin, Juliana Serafim da Silveira, Marie-Pierre Jolly, David N Firmin, George Mathew, Nathan Lamba, Sharath Subramanian, Dudley J Pennell, Subha V Raman, Orlando P Simonetti

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [A high temporal resolution dynamic TNan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The future of CMR: All-in-one vs. real-time CMR (Part 2).Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Cardiac TJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Accelerated free-breathing whole-heart 3D TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) 2015-2016 and transition of the JCMR office to Boston.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2017
    Review
  14. Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2015.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2016
    Review
  15. Validation of T2* in-line analysis for tissue iron quantification at 1.5 T.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2016
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ning JinSiemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc, 460 West 12th Ave, Room 311, OH 43210, Columbus, OH, USA. ning.jin@siemens.com.
Juliana Serafim da SilveiraDavis Heart & Lung Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. juliana.serafimdasilveira@osumc.edu.
Marie-Pierre JollyImaging & Computer Vision, Siemens Corporation, Corporate Technology, Princeton, NJ, USA. marie-pierre.jolly@siemens.com.
David N FirminNIHR Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, London, UK. d.firmin@imperial.ac.uk.
George MathewNIHR Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, London, UK. g.mathew@rbht.nhs.uk.
Nathan LambaDavis Heart & Lung Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. nathan.lamba@osumc.edu.
Sharath SubramanianDepartment of Internal Medicine - Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. sharath.subramanian@osumc.edu.
Dudley J PennellNIHR Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, London, UK. d.pennell@imperial.ac.uk.
Subha V RamanDavis Heart & Lung Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. subha.raman@osumc.edu.
Orlando P SimonettiDavis Heart & Lung Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. orlando.simonetti@osumc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeasurement of myocardial T2* is becoming widely used in the assessment of patients at risk for cardiac iron overload. The conventional breath-hold, ECG-triggered, segmented, multi-echo gradient echo (MGRE) sequence used for myocardial T2* quantification is very sensitive to respiratory motion and may not be feasible in patients who are unable to breath-hold. We propose a free-breathing myocardial T2* mapping approach that combines a single-shot gradient-echo echo-planar imaging (GRE-EPI) sequence for T2*-weighted image acquisition with automatic non-rigid motion correction (MOCO) of respiratory motion between single-shot images.

methodsECG-triggered T2*-weighted images at different echo times were acquired by a black-blood, single-shot GRE-EPI sequence during free-breathing. A single image at a single TE is acquired in each heartbeat. Automatic non-rigid MOCO was applied to correct for in-plane respiratory motion before pixel-wise T2* mapping. In a total of 117 patients referred for clinical cardiac magnetic resonance exams, the free-breathing MOCO GRE-EPI sequence was compared to the breath-hold segmented MGRE approach. Image quality was scored independently by 2 experienced observers blinded to the particular image acquisition strategy. T2* measurements in the interventricular septum and in the liver were compared for the two methods in all cases with adequate image quality.

resultsT2* maps were acquired in all 117 patients using the breath-hold MGRE and the free-breathing MOCO GRE-EPI approaches, including 8 patients with myocardial iron overload and 25 patients with hepatic iron overload. The mean image quality of the free-breathing MOCO GRE-EPI images was scored significantly higher than that of the breath-hold MGRE images by both reviewers. Out of the 117 studies, 21 breath-hold MGRE studies (17.9% of all the patients) were scored to be less than adequate or very poor by both reviewers, while only 2 free-breathing MOCO GRE-EPI studies were scored to be less than adequate image quality. In a comparative evaluation of the images with at least adequate quality, the intra-class correlation coefficients for myocardial and liver T2* were 0.868 and 0.986 respectively (p < 0.001), indicating that the T2* measured by breath-hold MGRE and free-breathing MOCO GRE-EPI were in close agreement. The coefficient of variation between the breath-hold and free-breathing approaches for myocardial and liver T2* were 9.88% and 9.38% respectively. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated good absolute agreement of T2* in the interventricular septum and the liver from the free-breathing and breath-hold approaches (mean differences -0.03 and 0.16 ms, respectively).

conclusionThe free-breathing approach described for T2* mapping using MOCO GRE-EPI enables accurate myocardial and liver T2* measurements and is insensitive to respiratory motion.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingRespiratory MechanicsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAutomationBiomarkersCardiac-Gated Imaging TechniquesCardiomyopathiesChildElectrocardiographyFemaleHeart RateHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedBiomarkersIron

Identifiers

PMID26699850
PMCPMC4690363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.