Patient-Adaptive Magnetic Resonance Oximetry: Comparison With Invasive Catheter Measurement of Blood Oxygen Saturation in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The current standard method to measure intracardiac oxygen (O2 ) saturation is by invasive catheterization. Accurate noninvasive blood O2 saturation by MRI could potentially reduce the duration and risk of invasive diagnostic procedures. PURPOSE: To noninvasively determine blood oxygen saturation in the heart with MRI and compare the accuracy with catheter measurements. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Thirty-two patients referred for right heart catheterization (RHC) and five healthy subjects. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: T2-prepared single-shot balanced steady-state free-precession at 1.5T. ASSESSMENT: MR signals in venous and arterial blood, hematocrit, and arterial O2 saturation from a pulse oximeter were jointly processed to fit the Luz-Meiboom model and estimate blood O2 saturation in the right heart. Interstudy reproducibility was evaluated in volunteers and patients. Interobserver reproducibility among three readers was assessed using data from volunteers and 10 patients. Accuracy of MR oximetry was compared to RHC in all patients. STATISTICAL TESTS: Coefficient of variation, intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman analysis, Pearson's correlation. RESULTS: The coefficient of variation for interstudy reproducibility of O2 saturation was 2.6% on average in volunteers and 3.2% in patients. Interobserver reproducibility among three observers yielded intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.81 and 0.87 respectively for RV and MPA O2 saturation. O2 saturation (y = 0.85x + 0.13, R = 0.78) and (a-v)O2 difference (y = 0.71x + 0.90, R = 0.69) by MR and RHC were significantly correlated (N = 32, P < 0.05 in both cases) in patients. MR slightly overestimated O2 saturation compared to RHC with 2% ± 5% bias and limits of agreement between -7% and 12%. DATA CONCLUSION: MR oximetry is repeatable and reproducible. Good agreement was shown between MR and catheter venous O2 saturation and (a-v)O2 difference in a cohort whose venous O2 ranged from abnormally low to high levels, with most values in the normal physiological range. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2. TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.

Quantification of aortic stenosis diagnostic parameters: comparison of fast 3 direction and 1 direction phase contrast CMR and transthoracic echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Aortic stenosis (AS) is a common valvular disorder, and disease severity is currently assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). However, TTE results can be inconsistent in some patients, thus other diagnostic modalities such as cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) are demanded. While traditional unidirectional phase-contrast CMR (1Dir PC-CMR) underestimates velocity if the imaging plane is misaligned to the flow direction, multi-directional acquisitions are expected to improve velocity measurement accuracy. Nonetheless, clinical use of multidirectional techniques has been hindered by long acquisition times. Our goal was to quantify flow parameters in patients using 1Dir PC-CMR and a faster multi-directional technique (3Dir PC-CMR), and compare to TTE. METHODS: Twenty-three patients were prospectively assessed with TTE and CMR. Slices above the aortic valve were acquired for both PC-CMR techniques and cine SSFP images were acquired to quantify left ventricular stroke volume. 3Dir PC-CMR implementation included a variable density sampling pattern with acceleration rate of 8 and a reconstruction method called ReVEAL, to significantly accelerate acquisition. 3Dir PC-CMR reconstruction was performed offline and ReVEAL-based image recovery was performed on the three (x, y, z) encoding pairs. 1Dir PC-CMR was acquired with GRAPPA acceleration rate of 2 and reconstructed online. CMR derived flow parameters and aortic valve area estimates were compared to TTE. RESULTS: ReVEAL based 3Dir PC-CMR derived parameters correlated better with TTE than 1Dir PC-CMR. Correlations ranged from 0.61 to 0.81 between TTE and 1Dir PC-CMR and from 0.61 to 0.87 between TTE and 3Dir-PC-CMR. The correlation coefficients between TTE, 1Dir and 3Dir PC-CMR Vpeakwere 0.81 and 0.87, respectively. In comparison to ReVEAL, TTE slightly underestimates peak velocities, which is not surprising as TTE is only sensitive to flow that is parallel to the acoustic beam. CONCLUSIONS: By exploiting structure unique to PC-CMR, ReVEAL enables multi-directional flow imaging in clinically feasible acquisition times. Results support the hypothesis that ReVEAL-based 3Dir PC-CMR provides better estimation of hemodynamic parameters in AS patients in comparison to 1Dir PC-CMR. While TTE can accurately measure velocity parallel to the acoustic beam, it is not sensitive to the other directions of flow. Therefore, multi-directional flow imaging, which encodes all three components of the velocity vector, can potentially outperform TTE in patients with eccentric or multiple jets.