Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online before print February 21, 2006, 10.1148/radiol.2383042019
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2383042019v1
239/1/71    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jahnke, C.
Right arrow Articles by Nagel, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jahnke, C.
Right arrow Articles by Nagel, E.
(Radiology 2006;239:71-78.)
© RSNA, 2006


Cardiac Imaging

Coronary MR Imaging: Breath-hold Capability and Patterns, Coronary Artery Rest Periods, and ß-Blocker Use1

Cosima Jahnke, MD, Ingo Paetsch, MD, Stephan Achenbach, MD, Bernhard Schnackenburg, PhD, Rolf Gebker, MD, Eckart Fleck, MD and Eike Nagel, MD

1 From the Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, German Heart Institute Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany (C.J., I.P., B.S., R.G., E.F., E.N.); Department of Cardiology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany (C.J.); and Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, University of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany (S.A.). Received November 29, 2004; revision requested January 28, 2005; revision received March 11; accepted April 5; final version accepted May 17. Address correspondence to C.J. (e-mail: jahnke{at}dhzb.de).

Purpose: To prospectively evaluate breath-hold capability and patterns, coronary artery rest periods, and ß-blocker use in coronary magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.

Materials and Methods: Ethics committee approval and informed consent were obtained. In 210 consecutive patients (mean age, 61.8 years ± 10.3 [standard deviation]; 146 men, 64 women), breath-hold patterns and maximal capability were assessed at expiration with dynamic navigator MR imaging (temporal resolution, 1 second). Left coronary artery (LCA) and right coronary artery (RCA) rest periods were determined at transverse cine imaging (steady-state free precession, retrospective gating, 40 phases per cycle). Before and after ß-blockade, rest periods were assessed in 25 additional patients (mean age, 61.4 years ± 7.1; 20 men, five women). Differences were tested within groups with paired Student t test and between groups with unpaired Student t test (continuous variables) and {chi}2 test (categoric variables). Pearson correlation was used to test the relationship between rest period and heart rate.

Results: Four distinct breath-hold patterns, characterized by diaphragmatic motion, were identified: pattern 1, steady plateau (55% of patients); 2, initial drift followed by plateau (12%); 3, continuous drift (19%); and 4, irregular, unsteady behavior (14%). Mean breath-hold capability with patterns 1 and 2 was 29 seconds ± 13 (range, 10–64 seconds). The rest period of LCA was longer than that of RCA (163 msec ± 75 vs 123 msec ± 60; P < .01) and began earlier in the cardiac cycle (521 msec ± 149 vs 540 msec ± 160; P < .01); In a minority of patients, LCA rest period began later (21%) or was shorter (14%). With no pharmacologic intervention, correlation between rest period duration and heart rate was weak (LCA, r = –0.52; RCA, r = –0.38; P < .01). However, ß-blockade significantly lowered heart rate (61.3 beats/min ± 7.2 vs 82.6 beats/min ± 12.5, P < .001) and increased rest duration (LCA, 201.8 msec ± 83.6 vs 111.8 msec ± 44.55; RCA, 134.8 msec ± 57.3 vs 83.1 msec ± 35.8; P < .001).

Conclusion: In 33% of patients (patterns 3 and 4), breath-hold pattern was unsuitable for high-spatial-resolution breath-hold MR imaging. LCA and RCA rest periods showed large variability in starting point and duration, with no correlation to heart rate.

© RSNA, 2006




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
R. Wyttenbach, A. Braghetti, M. Wyss, M. Alerci, L. Briner, P. Santini, L. Cozzi, M. Di Valentino, M. Katoh, C. Marone, et al.
Renal Artery Assessment with Nonenhanced Steady-State Free Precession versus Contrast-enhanced MR Angiography
Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 186 - 195.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2006 by the Radiological Society of North America.