Influence of motion correction on the visual analysis of cardiac magnetic resonance stress perfusion imaging

Objective Image post-processing corrects for cardiac and respiratory motion (MoCo) during cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) stress perfusion. The study analyzed its influence on visual image evaluation. Materials and methods Sixty-two patients with (suspected) coronary artery disease underwent...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Magma (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2021-10, Vol.34 (5), p.757-766
Hauptverfasser: von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, Florian, Reiter, Stephanie, Menini, Anne, Janich, Martin A., Schunke, Tobias, Ziegler, Karl, Scheck, Roland, Höfling, Berthold, Pilz, Günter
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective Image post-processing corrects for cardiac and respiratory motion (MoCo) during cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) stress perfusion. The study analyzed its influence on visual image evaluation. Materials and methods Sixty-two patients with (suspected) coronary artery disease underwent a standard CMR stress perfusion exam during free-breathing. Image post-processing was performed without (non-MoCo) and with MoCo (image intensity normalization; motion extraction with iterative non-rigid registration; motion warping with the combined displacement field). Images were evaluated regarding the perfusion pattern (perfusion deficit, dark rim artifact, uncertain signal loss, and normal perfusion), the general image quality (non-diagnostic, imperfect, good, and excellent), and the reader’s subjective confidence to assess the images (not confident, confident, very confident). Results Fifty-three (non-MoCo) and 52 (MoCo) myocardial segments were rated as ‘perfusion deficit’, 113 vs. 109 as ‘dark rim artifacts’, 9 vs. 7 as ‘uncertain signal loss’, and 817 vs. 824 as ‘normal’. Agreement between non-MoCo and MoCo was high with no diagnostic difference per-patient. The image quality of MoCo was rated more often as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ (92 vs. 63%), and the diagnostic confidence more often as “very confident” (71 vs. 45%) compared to non-MoCo. Conclusions The comparison of perfusion images acquired during free-breathing and post-processed with and without motion correction demonstrated that both methods led to a consistent evaluation of the perfusion pattern, while the image quality and the reader’s subjective confidence to assess the images were rated more favorably for MoCo.
ISSN:0968-5243
1352-8661
DOI:10.1007/s10334-021-00923-2