Original Research
Cardiothoracic Imaging
February 7, 2024

Prospective Comparison of Free-Breathing Accelerated Cine Deep Learning Reconstruction Versus Standard Breath-Hold Cardiac MRI Sequences in Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease

Abstract

Background: Cine cardiac MRI sequences require repeated breath-holds, which can be difficult in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD).
Objective: To compare a free-breathing accelerated cine sequence using deep-learning (DL) reconstruction and a standard breath-hold cine sequence in terms of image quality and left-ventricular (LV) measurements in patients with IHD undergoing cardiac MRI.
Methods: This prospective study included patients undergoing 1.5-T or 3-T cardiac MRI for evaluation of IHD between March 15, 2023, and June 21, 2023. Examinations included an investigational free-breathing cine short-axis sequence with DL reconstruction (cine-DL). Two radiologists (R1, R2), in blinded fashion, independently assessed LV ejection fraction (LVEF), LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), and subjective image quality, for cine-DL sequence and standard breath-hold balanced SSFP sequences; R1 assessed artifacts.
Results: The analysis included 26 patients (mean age, 64.3±11.7 years; 14 men, 12 women). Acquisition was shorter for cine-DL than standard sequence (0.6±0.1 min vs 2.4±0.6 min, p<.001). Cine-DL, in comparison with standard, showed no significant difference for LVEF for R1 (51.7±14.3% vs 51.3±14.7%, p=.56) or R2 (53.4±14.9% vs 52.8±14.6%, p=.53); significantly greater LVEDV for R2 (171.9±51.9 vs 160.6±49.4 ml, p=.01) but not R1 (171.8±53.7 vs 165.5±52.4 ml, p=.16); and no significant difference in LVESV for R1 (88.1±49.3 vs 86.0±50.5 ml, p=.45) or R2 (85.2±48.1 vs 81.3±48.2 ml, p=.10). Mean bias between cine-DL and standard was: LVEF, 0.4% for R1 and 0.7% for R2; LVEDV, 6.3 ml for R1 and 11.3 ml for R2; LVESV, 2.1 ml for R1 and 3.9 ml for R2. Subjective image quality was better for cine-DL than standard for R1 (2.3±0.5 vs 1.9±0.8, p=.02) and R2 (2.2±0.4 vs 1.9±0.7; p=.02). R1 reported no significant difference between cine-DL and standard for off-resonance (3.8% vs 23.1%, p=.10), and parallel-imaging (3.8% vs 19.2%, p=.19) artifacts; blurring artifacts were more frequent for cine-DL than standard (42.3% vs 7.7%; p=.008).
Conclusion: Free-breathing cine-DL sequence, in comparison with standard breath-hold cine sequence, showed very small bias for LVEF measurements and better subjective quality. Cine-DL yielded greater LV volumes.
Clinical Impact: Free-breathing cine-DL may yield reliable LVEF measurements in patients with IHD unable to repeatedly breath-hold.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Supplemental Content

File (23_30272_suppl.pdf)

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

American Journal of Roentgenology

History

Accepted: January 29, 2024

Authors

Affiliations

David Monteuuis, MD [email protected]
Department of Radiology, Amiens University Hospital, 1 Rond-Point du Professeur Christian Cabrol, F-80054 Amiens Cedex 01, France
Roger Bouzerar, PhD
Biophysics and Image Processing Unit, Amiens University Hospital, Amiens, France
Charlotte Dantoing, MD
Department of Radiology, Amiens University Hospital, 1 Rond-Point du Professeur Christian Cabrol, F-80054 Amiens Cedex 01, France
Julie Poujol, PhD
GE HealthCare, Clinical Research, Buc, France
Yohann Bohbot, MD, PhD
Department of Cardiology, Amiens University Hospital, Amiens, France
Cédric Renard, MD
Department of Radiology, Amiens University Hospital, 1 Rond-Point du Professeur Christian Cabrol, F-80054 Amiens Cedex 01, France

Notes

Corresponding Author: Monteuuis David: Department of Radiology, Amiens University Hospital, 1 Rond-Point du Professeur Christian Cabrol, F-80054 Amiens Cedex 01, France. Tel: +33 3 22 08 75 00; Fax: +33 3 22 08 99 85; [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

To download the citation to this article, select your reference manager software.

There are no citations for this item

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media