Background Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in the four-chamber plane ofers comprehensive insight into the volumetrics of the heart. We aimed to develop an artifcial intelligence (AI) model of time... Show moreBackground Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in the four-chamber plane ofers comprehensive insight into the volumetrics of the heart. We aimed to develop an artifcial intelligence (AI) model of time-resolved segmenta‑ tion using the four-chamber cine. Methods A fully automated deep learning algorithm was trained using retrospective multicentre and multivendor data of 814 subjects. Validation, reproducibility, and mortality prediction were evaluated on an independent cohort of 101 subjects. Results The mean age of the validation cohort was 54 years, and 66 (65%) were males. Left and right heart parame‑ ters demonstrated strong correlations between automated and manual analysis, with a ρ of 0.91−0.98 and 0.89−0.98, respectively, with minimal bias. All AI four-chamber volumetrics in repeatability analysis demonstrated high correla‑ tion (ρ=0.99−1.00) and no bias. Automated four-chamber analysis underestimated both left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volumes compared to ground-truth short-axis cine analysis. Two correction factors for LV and RV four-chamber analysis were proposed based on systematic bias. After applying the correction factors, a strong correlation and minimal bias for LV volumetrics were observed. During a mean follow-up period of 6.75 years, 16 patients died. On stepwise multivariable analysis, left atrial ejection fraction demonstrated an independent association with death in both manual (hazard ratio (HR)=0.96, p=0.003) and AI analyses (HR=0.96, p<0.001). Conclusion Fully automated four-chamber CMR is feasible, reproducible, and has the same real-world prognostic value as manual analysis. LV volumes by four-chamber segmentation were comparable to short-axis volumetric assessment. Show less
Background: A new 72-channel receive array coil and sensitivity encoding, compressed (C-SENSE) and noncompressed (SENSE), were investigated to decrease the number of breath-holds (BHs) for cardiac... Show moreBackground: A new 72-channel receive array coil and sensitivity encoding, compressed (C-SENSE) and noncompressed (SENSE), were investigated to decrease the number of breath-holds (BHs) for cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Methods: Three-T CMRs were performed using the 72-channel coil with SENSE-2/4/6 and C-SENSE-2/4/6 accelerated short-axis cine two-dimensional balanced steady-state free precession sequences. A 16-channel coil with SENSE-2 served as reference. Ten healthy subjects were included. BH-time was kept under 15 s. Data were compared in terms of image quality, biventricular function, number of BHs, and scan times. Results: BHs decreased from 7 with C-SENSE-2 (scan time 70 s, 2 slices/BH) to 3 with C-SENSE-4 (scan time 42 s, 4-5 slices/BH) and 2 with C-SENSE-6 (scan time 28 s, 7 slices/BH). Compared to reference, image sharpness was similar for SENSE-2/4/6, slightly inferior for C-SENSE-2/4/6. Blood-to-myocardium contrast was unaffected. C-SENSE-4/6 was given lower qualitative median scores, but images were considered diagnostically adequate to excellent, with C-SENSE-6 suboptimal. Biventricular end-diastolic (EDV), end-systolic (ESV) and stroke volumes, ejection fractions (EF), cardiac outputs, and left ventricle (LV)-mass were similar for SENSE-2/4/6 with no systematic bias and clinically appropriate limits of agreements. C-SENSE slightly underestimated LV-EDV (-6.38 +/- 6.0 mL, p < 0.047), LV-ESV (-7.94 +/- 6.0 mL, p < 0.030) and overestimated LV-EF (3.16 +/- 3.10%; p < 0.047) with C-SENSE-4. Bland-Altman analyses revealed minor systematic biases in these variables with C-SENSE-2/4/6 and for LV-mass with C-SENSE-6. Conclusions: Using the 72-channel coil, short-axis CMR for quantifying biventricular function was feasible in two BHs where SENSE slightly outperformed C-SENSE. Show less
