Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of the contrast "bolus only" T1 mapping cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) technique for measuring myocardial extracellular volume fraction (ECV). Background: Myocardial ECV can be measured with T1 mapping before and after contrast agent if the contrast agent distribution between blood/myocardium is at equilibrium. Equilibrium distribution can be achieved with a primed contrast infusion (equilibrium contrast-CMR [EQ-CMR]) or might be approximated by the dynamic equilibration achieved by delayed post-bolus measurement. This bolus only approach is highly attractive, but currently limited data support its use. We compared the bolus only technique with 2 independent standards: collagen volume fraction (CVF) from myocardial biopsy in aortic stenosis (AS); and the infusion technique in 5 representative conditions. Methods: One hundred forty-seven subjects were studied: healthy volunteers (n = 50); hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n = 25); severe AS (n = 22); amyloid (n = 20); and chronic myocardial infarction (n = 30). Bolus only (at 15 min) and infusion ECV measurements were performed and compared. In 18 subjects with severe AS the results were compared with histological CVF. Results: The ECV by both techniques correlated with histological CVF (n = 18, r 2 = 0.69, p < 0.01 vs. r 2 = 0.71, p < 0.01, p = 0.42 for comparison). Across health and disease, there was strong correlation between the techniques (r 2 = 0.97). However, in diseases of high ECV (amyloid, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy late gadolinium enhancement, and infarction), Bland-Altman analysis indicates the bolus only technique has a consistent and increasing offset, giving a higher value for ECVs above 0.4 (mean difference ± limit of agreement for ECV < 0.4 = -0.004 ± 0.037 vs. ECV > 0.4 = 0.040 ± 0.075, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Bolus only, T1 mapping-derived ECV measurement is sufficient for ECV measurement across a range of cardiac diseases, and this approach is histologically validated in AS. However, when ECV is > 0.4, the bolus only technique consistently measures ECV higher compared with infusion. © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. © 2013 By Theamerican College of Cardiology Foundation.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.01.011

Type

Journal article

Journal

JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging

Publication Date

01/09/2013

Volume

6

Pages

955 - 962