To compare accuracy, precision, and reproducibility of four commonly used myocardial T1 mapping sequences: modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI), shortened MOLLI (ShMOLLI), saturation recovery single-shot acquisition (SASHA), and saturation pulse prepared heart rate independent inversion recovery (SAPPHIRE). Materials andMethods:This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board. All subjects provided written informed consent. Accuracy, precision, and reproducibility of the four T1 mapping sequences were first compared in phantom experiments. In vivo analysis was performed in seven healthy subjects (mean age 6 standard deviation, 38 years 6 19; four men, three women) who were imaged twice on two separate days. In vivo reproducibility of native T1 mapping and extracellular volume (ECV) were measured. Differences between the sequences were assessed by using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum tests (phantom data) and mixed-effect models (in vivo data). Results:T1 mapping accuracy in phantoms was lower with ShMOLLI (62 msec) and MOLLI (44 msec) than with SASHA (13 msec; P , .05) and SAPPHIRE (12 msec; P , .05). MOLLI had similar precision to ShMOLLI (4.0 msec vs 5.6 msec; P = .07) but higher precision than SAPPHIRE (6.8 msec; P = .002) and SASHA (8.7 msec; P , .001). All sequences had similar reproducibility in phantoms (P = .1). The four sequences had similar in vivo reproducibility for native T1 mapping (~25-50 msec; P . .05) and ECV quantification (~0.01-0.02; P . .05). Conclusion:SASHA and SAPPHIRE yield higher accuracy, lower precision, and similar reproducibility compared with MOLLI and ShMOLLI for T1 measurement. Different sequences yield different ECV values; however, all sequences have similar reproducibility for ECV quantification.q RSNA, 2014

Epicardial fat (EF) is a visceral fat deposit, located between the heart and the pericardium, which shares many of the pathophysiological properties of other visceral fat deposits, It also potentially causes local inflammation and likely has direct effects on coronary atherosclerosis. Echocardiography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging have been used to evaluate EF, but variations between methodologies limit the comparability between these modalities.We performed a systematic review of the literature finding associations of EF with metabolic syndrome and coronary artery disease. The summarization of these associations is limited by the heterogeneity of the methods used and the populations studied, where most of the subjects were at high cardiovascular disease risk.EF is also associated with other known factors, such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, age and hypertension, which makes the interpretation of its role as an independent risk marker intricate. Based on these data, we conclude that EF is a visceral fat deposit with potential implications in coronary artery disease. We describe the reference values of EF for the different imaging modalities, even though these have not yet been validated for clinical use. It is still necessary to better define normal reference values and the risk associated with EF to further evaluate its role in cardiovascular and metabolic risk assessment in relation to other criteria currently used.

No abstract

Left ventricular hypertrophy is an important risk factor in cardiovascular disease and echocardiography has been widely used for diagnosis. Although an adequate methodologic standardization exists currently, differences in measurement and interpreting data is present in most of the older clinical studies. Variability in border limits criteria, left ventricular mass formulas, body size indexing and other adjustments affects the comparability among these studies and may influence both the clinical and epidemiologic use of echocardiography in the investigation of the left ventricular structure. We are going to review the most common measures that have been employed in left ventricular hypertrophy evaluation in the light of some recent population based echocardiographic studies, intending to show that echocardiography will remain a relatively inexpensive and accurate tool diagnostic tool.