High resolution ultra-fast sparse sampling with iterative reconstruction imaging for left ventricular evaluation: clinical comparison with standard SSFP imaging

Abstract

regularization of the SENSE type dataset. Datasets were analysed by two experienced readers (>10 years CMR analysis), with papillary muscles and trabeculae included in the blood pool. Comparison of TrueFISP and CV_sparse was assessed using paired t-test and Pearson’s correlation, and inter-observery reproducibility by Bland-Altman Results 26 clinical patients had both TrueFISP and CV_sparse imaging successfully performed (figure1A,B), mean LVEF 49% (range 16-65%). Strong positive correlation was present for end-diastolic volumes (r=0.98, P< 0.0001), end-systolic volume (r=0.99, P< 0.0001), LVmass (r=0.97, P< 0.0001) and LVEF (r=0.97, P< 0.0001), with no difference between the groups (P=0.95 NS), figure1C. Reproducibility was excellent with bias 0.3%, limits-of-agreement -3.7 to 4.3% (figure1D). Acquisition time for the LVSAX series was significantly shorter for CV_sparse compared to TrueFISP (p<0.001), however CV_sparse images require longer reconstruction times (~5 minutes), during which clinical image acquisition can continue. Conclusions Highly accelerated imaging using TrueFISP with sparse sampling and iterative reconstruction provides excellent image quality with accurate, reproducible results equalling those of standard TrueFISP imaging, but with significantly more rapid acquisition times. This accelerated technique appears valid and ready for application to clinical practice.