Keywords:
Cardiovascular system, Cardiac, MR, Imaging sequences, Inflammation
Authors:
M. Polacin1, I. Kapos1, M. Gastl1, F. Morsbach1, A. Gotschy2, H. Alkadhi1, R. Manka1; 1Zurich/CH, 2Zürich/CH
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2019/C-1605
Results
For 21 of 30 (70%) of the 3D data sets and 22 of 30 (73.3%) of the 2D data sets,
image quality was excellent (score: 1).
Poor (score: 4) and nondiagnostic (score: 5) image quality was not found in either group.
There was no significant difference in image quality between 3D und 2D LGE acquisitions (1.5 vs 1.4,
P = 0.3) with good interreader agreement (weighted κ = 0.7 vs.
0.6).
There were no significant differences between 3D and 2D LGE acquisitions for myocardial mass (111.1 g ± 32.6 vs.
110.6 g ± 33.1,
P= 0.2),
fibrous tissue mass (7.8 g ± 6.2 vs.
7.5 ± 5.9,
P= 0.1) and total fibrous percentage (6.4 ± 3.4 vs.
6.3 ± 3.3,
P= 0.1).
Acquisition time was significantly shorter for 3D LGE sequence (26 ± 4 s) as compared to the 2D LGE sequence (350 ± 57 s,
P< 0.001).