Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Eur J Radiol. 2013 May;82(5):e219-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.12.019. Epub 2013 Jan 24.

High-resolution cine MRI with TGRAPPA for fast assessment of left ventricular function at 3 Tesla.

Author information

Department of Clinical Radiology, University Hospitals of Munich Grosshadern, Munich, Germany.



To implement and evaluate the accuracy of multislice dual-breath hold cine MR for analysis of global systolic and diastolic left ventricular function at 3T.


25 patients referred to cardiac MR underwent cine imaging at 3T (MAGNETOM Verio) using prospective triggered SSFP (TR 3.1 ms; TE 1.4 ms; FA 60°). Analysis of LV function was performed using a standard non-accelerated single-slice approach (STD) with multiple breath-holds and an accelerated multi-slice technique (TGRAPPA; R=4) encompassing the ventricles with 5 slices/breath-hold. Parameters of spatial and temporal resolution were kept identical (pixel: 1.9 × 2.5 mm(2); temporal resolution: 47 ms). Data of both acquisition techniques were analyzed by two readers using semiautomatic algorithms (syngoARGUS) with respect to EDV, ESV, EF, myocardial mass (MM), peak filling rate (PFR) and peak ejection rate (PER) including assessment of interobserver agreement.


Volumetric results of the TGRAPPA approach did not show significant differences to the STD approach for left ventricular ejection fraction (62.3 ± 10.6 vs. 61.0 ± 8.4, P=0.2), end-diastolic volume (135.8 ± 47.5 vs. 130.8 ± 46.4, P=0.07), endsystolic volume (53.0 ± 29.7 vs. 53.1 ± 32.7, P=0.99) and myocardial mass (114.2 ± 32.5 vs. 114.6±30.6, P=0.9). Moreover, a comparison of peak ejection rate (601.3 ± 190.2 vs. 590.8 ± 218.2, P=0.8) and peak filling rate (535.1±191.2 vs. 535.4 ± 210.7, P=0.99) did not reveal significant differences between the two groups. Limits in interobserver agreement were low for all systolic and diastolic parameters in both groups (P ≥ 0.05). Total acquisition time for STD was 273 ± 124 s and 34 ± 5 s for TGRAPPA (P ≤ 0.001). Evaluation time for standard and multislice approach was equal (10.8 ± 1.4 vs. 9.8 ± 2.1 min; P=0.08).

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center