Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: To evaluate diagnostic image quality of 3D late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) with high isotropic spatial resolution (∼1.4 mm ) images reconstructed from randomly undersampled k-space using LOw-dimensional-structure Self-learning and Thresholding (LOST).
Materials And Methods: We prospectively enrolled 270 patients (181 men; 55 ± 14 years) referred for myocardial viability assessment. 3D LGE with isotropic spatial resolution of 1.4 ± 0.1 mm was acquired at 1.5T using a LOST acceleration rate of 3 to 5. In a subset of 121 patients, 3D LGE or phase-sensitive LGE were acquired with parallel imaging with an acceleration rate of 2 for comparison. Two readers evaluated image quality using a scale of 1 (poor) to 4 (excellent) and assessed for scar presence. The McNemar test statistic was used to compare the proportion of detected scar between the two sequences. We assessed the association between image quality and characteristics (age, gender, torso dimension, weight, heart rate), using generalized linear models.
Results: Overall, LGE detection proportions for 3D LGE with LOST were similar between readers 1 and 2 (16.30% vs. 18.15%). For image quality, readers gave 85.9% and 80.0%, respectively, for images categorized as good or excellent. Overall proportion of scar presence was not statistically different from conventional 3D LGE (28% vs. 33% [P = 0.17] for reader 1 and 26% vs. 31% [P = 0.37] for reader 2). Increasing subject heart rate was associated with lower image quality (estimated slope = -0.009 (P = 0.001)).
Conclusion: High-resolution 3D LGE with LOST yields good to excellent image quality in >80% of patients and identifies patients with LV scar at the same rate as conventional 3D LGE.
Level Of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1829-1838.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5600642 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25695 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!