Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 25, 2026
Quantification of Mouse Heart Left Ventricular Function, Myocardial Strain, and Hemodynamic Forces by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published on: May 24, 2021
Compressed sensing single-breath-hold CMR for fast quantification of LV function, volumes, and mass
Gabriella Vincenti1, Pierre Monney1, Jérôme Chaptinel2
1Division of Cardiology and Cardiac MR Center, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Objectives:
The purpose of this study was to compare a novel compressed sensing (CS)-based single-breath-hold multislice magnetic resonance cine technique with the standard multi-breath-hold technique for the assessment of left ventricular (LV) volumes and function.
Background:
Cardiac magnetic resonance is generally accepted as the gold standard for LV volume and function assessment. LV function is 1 of the most important cardiac parameters for diagnosis and the monitoring of treatment effects. Recently, CS techniques have emerged as a means to accelerate data acquisition.
Methods:
The prototype CS cine sequence acquires 3 long-axis and 4 short-axis cine loops in 1 single breath-hold (temporal/spatial resolution: 30 ms/1.5 × 1.5 mm(2); acceleration factor 11.0) to measure left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF(CS)) as well as LV volumes and LV mass using LV model-based 4D software. For comparison, a conventional stack of multi-breath-hold cine images was acquired (temporal/spatial resolution 40 ms/1.2 × 1.6 mm(2)). As a reference for the left ventricular stroke volume (LVSV), aortic flow was measured by phase-contrast acquisition.
Results:
In 94% of the 33 participants (12 volunteers: mean age 33 ± 7 years; 21 patients: mean age 63 ± 13 years with different LV pathologies), the image quality of the CS acquisitions was excellent. LVEF(CS) and LVEF(standard) were similar (48.5 ± 15.9% vs. 49.8 ± 15.8%; p = 0.11; r = 0.96; slope 0.97; p < 0.00001). Agreement of LVSV(CS) with aortic flow was superior to that of LVSV(standard) (overestimation vs. aortic flow: 5.6 ± 6.5 ml vs. 16.2 ± 11.7 ml, respectively; p = 0.012) with less variability (r = 0.91; p < 0.00001 for the CS technique vs. r = 0.71; p < 0.01 for the standard technique). The intraobserver and interobserver agreement for all CS parameters was good (slopes 0.93 to 1.06; r = 0.90 to 0.99).
Conclusions:
The results demonstrated the feasibility of applying the CS strategy to evaluate LV function and volumes with high accuracy in patients. The single-breath-hold CS strategy has the potential to replace the multi-breath-hold standard cardiac magnetic resonance technique.
