Intramyocardial hemorrhage and area at risk are both prognostic markers in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Myocardial T2 and T2* mapping have been used to detect such tissue changes at 1.5T but these techniques are challenging at 3.0T due to additional susceptibility variation. We studied T2 and T2* myocardial mapping techniques at 3.0T on a system employing B1 shimming and compared two different methods of B0 shimming.Materials and Methods:
Fifteen volunteers and six AMI patients were scanned on a 3T system. Volume and image-based (IB) B0 shimming techniques were implemented. Single breath-hold, multiecho gradient, and spin echo sequences were employed from which T2* and T2 maps were calculated.Results:
In volunteers, there was no significant difference in mean values obtained with volume or IB shimming for T2 mapping (39.1 ± 6.0 msec vs. 39.4 ± 6.1 msec; P > 0.05) or for T2* mapping (24.2 ± 6.7 msec vs. 24.1 ± 5.2 msec; P > 0.05). There were no significant regional differences in mean T2 values between septal, anterior, and posterior segments with either shimming technique (all P > 0.05); but there were significant regional differences in mean T2* values using volume shimming (27.8 ± 5.2 msec vs. 28.4 ± 5.8 msec vs. 15.9 ± 8.3 msec; P < 0.05)—but not with IB shimming (25.7 ± 5.4 msec vs. 25.3 ± 5.9 msec vs. 18.7 ± 4.6 msec; P > 0.05).Conclusion:
At 3.0T, cardiac T2 mapping is robust. Although T2* mapping is prone to more regional heterogeneity this can be reduced by using IB instead of conventional volume B0 shimming.