Influence of motion correction on the visual analysis of cardiac magnetic resonance stress perfusion imaging
Autor: | Roland Scheck, Tobias Schunke, Günter Pilz, Anne Menini, Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, Berthold Höfling, Stephanie Reiter, Karl Ziegler, Martin A. Janich |
---|---|
Rok vydání: | 2021 |
Předmět: |
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Image quality Perfusion Imaging Stress perfusion Biophysics 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging Coronary artery disease Motion 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine medicine Humans Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging Image warping Artifact (error) Radiological and Ultrasound Technology medicine.diagnostic_test business.industry Heart Magnetic resonance imaging Motion correction medicine.disease Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artifacts Nuclear medicine business Perfusion Magnetic Resonance Angiography |
Zdroj: | Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine. 34:757-766 |
ISSN: | 1352-8661 0968-5243 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s10334-021-00923-2 |
Popis: | 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. 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). 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. 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. |
Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
Externí odkaz: |