Loading…

Feasibility of accelerated non-contrast-enhanced whole-heart bSSFP coronary MR angiography by deep learning–constrained compressed sensing

Objectives To examine a compressed sensing artificial intelligence (CSAI) framework to accelerate image acquisition in non-contrast-enhanced whole-heart bSSFP coronary magnetic resonance (MR) angiography. Methods Thirty healthy volunteers and 20 patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European radiology 2023-11, Vol.33 (11), p.8180-8190
Main Authors: Wu, Xi, Tang, Lu, Li, Wanjiang, He, Shuai, Yue, Xun, Peng, Pengfei, Wu, Tao, Zhang, Xiaoyong, Wu, Zhigang, He, Yong, Chen, Yucheng, Huang, Juan, Sun, Jiayu
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives To examine a compressed sensing artificial intelligence (CSAI) framework to accelerate image acquisition in non-contrast-enhanced whole-heart bSSFP coronary magnetic resonance (MR) angiography. Methods Thirty healthy volunteers and 20 patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) scheduled for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) were enrolled. Non-contrast-enhanced coronary MR angiography was performed with CSAI, compressed sensing (CS), and sensitivity encoding (SENSE) methods in healthy participants and with CSAI in patients. Acquisition time, subjective image quality score, and objective image quality measurement (blood pool homogeneity, signal-to-noise ratio [SNR], and contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) were compared among the three protocols. The diagnostic performance of CASI coronary MR angiography for predicting significant stenosis (≥ 50% diameter stenosis) on CCTA was evaluated. The Friedman test was performed to compare the three protocols. Results Acquisition time was significantly shorter in the CSAI and CS groups than in the SENSE group (10.2 ± 3.2 min vs. 10.9 ± 2.9 min vs. 13.0 ± 4.1 min, p  
ISSN:1432-1084
0938-7994
1432-1084
DOI:10.1007/s00330-023-09740-8