Simultaneous Mapping of T1 and T2 Using Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting in a Cohort of Healthy Subjects at 1.5T.

<bold>Background: </bold>Cardiac MR fingerprinting (cMRF) is a novel technique for simultaneous T1 and T2 mapping.<bold>Purpose: </bold>To compare T1 /T2 measurements, repeatability, and map quality between cMRF and standard mapping techniques in healthy subjects.<bold>Study Type: </bold>Prospective.<bold>Population: </bold>In all, 58 subjects (ages 18-60). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: cMRF, modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI), and T2 -prepared balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) at 1.5T.<bold>Assessment: </bold>T1 /T2 values were measured in 16 myocardial segments at apical, medial, and basal slice positions. Test-retest and intrareader repeatability were assessed for the medial slice. cMRF and conventional mapping sequences were compared using ordinal and two alternative forced choice (2AFC) ratings.<bold>Statistical Tests: </bold>Paired t-tests, Bland-Altman analyses, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), linear regression, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and binomial tests.<bold>Results: </bold>Average T1 measurements were: basal 1007.4±96.5 msec (cMRF), 990.0±45.3 msec (MOLLI); medial 995.0±101.7 msec (cMRF), 995.6±59.7 msec (MOLLI); apical 1006.6±111.2 msec (cMRF); and 981.6±87.6 msec (MOLLI). Average T2 measurements were: basal 40.9±7.0 msec (cMRF), 46.1±3.5 msec (bSSFP); medial 41.0±6.4 msec (cMRF), 47.4±4.1 msec (bSSFP); apical 43.5±6.7 msec (cMRF), 48.0±4.0 msec (bSSFP). A statistically significant bias (cMRF T1 larger than MOLLI T1 ) was observed in basal (17.4 msec) and apical (25.0 msec) slices. For T2 , a statistically significant bias (cMRF lower than bSSFP) was observed for basal (-5.2 msec), medial (-6.3 msec), and apical (-4.5 msec) slices. Precision was lower for cMRF-the average of the standard deviation measured within each slice was 102 msec for cMRF vs. 61 msec for MOLLI T1 , and 6.4 msec for cMRF vs. 4.0 msec for bSSFP T2 . cMRF and conventional techniques had similar test-retest repeatability as quantified by ICC (0.87 cMRF vs. 0.84 MOLLI for T1 ; 0.85 cMRF vs. 0.85 bSSFP for T2 ). In the ordinal image quality comparison, cMRF maps scored higher than conventional sequences for both T1 (all five features) and T2 (four features).<bold>Data Conclusion: </bold>This work reports on myocardial T1 /T2 measurements in healthy subjects using cMRF and standard mapping sequences. cMRF had slightly lower precision, similar test-retest and intrareader repeatability, and higher scores for map quality.<bold>Evidence Level: </bold>2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:1044-1052. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]