Automated Vs Manual Cardiac MRI Planning: a Single-center Prospective Evaluation of Reliability and Scan Times

Overview

Journal Eur Radiol

Date 2025 Jan 22

PMID 39841204

Authors

Carl Glessgen

Lindsey A Crowe

Jens Wetzl

Michaela Schmidt

Seung Su Yoon

Jean-Paul Vallee

Jean-Francois Deux

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Evaluating the impact of an AI-based automated cardiac MRI (CMR) planning software on procedure errors and scan times compared to manual planning alone.

Material And Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing non-stress CMR were prospectively enrolled at a single center (August 2023-February 2024) and randomized into manual, or automated scan execution using prototype software. Patients with pacemakers, targeted indications, or inability to consent were excluded. All patients underwent the same CMR protocol with contrast, in breath-hold (BH) or free breathing (FB). Supervising radiologists recorded procedure errors (plane prescription, forgotten views, incorrect propagation of cardiac planes, and field-of-view mismanagement). Scan times and idle phase (non-acquisition portion) were computed from scanner logs. Most data were non-normally distributed and compared using non-parametric tests.

Results: Eighty-two patients (mean age, 51.6 years ± 17.5; 56 men) were included. Forty-four patients underwent automated and 38 manual CMRs. The mean rate of procedure errors was significantly (p = 0.01) lower in the automated (0.45) than in the manual group (1.13). The rate of error-free examinations was higher (p = 0.03) in the automated (31/44; 70.5%) than in the manual group (17/38; 44.7%). Automated studies were shorter than manual studies in FB (30.3 vs 36.5 min, p < 0.001) but had similar durations in BH (42.0 vs 43.5 min, p = 0.42). The idle phase was lower in automated studies for FB and BH strategies (both p < 0.001).

Conclusion: An AI-based automated software performed CMR at a clinical level with fewer planning errors and improved efficiency compared to manual planning.

Key Points: Question What is the impact of an AI-based automated CMR planning software on procedure errors and scan times compared to manual planning alone? Findings Software-driven examinations were more reliable (71% error-free) than human-planned ones (45% error-free) and showed improved efficiency with reduced idle time. Clinical relevance CMR examinations require extensive technologist training, and continuous attention, and involve many planning steps. A fully automated software reliably acquired non-stress CMR potentially reducing mistake risk and increasing data homogeneity.

References

Leiner T, Bogaert J, Friedrich M, Mohiaddin R, Muthurangu V, Myerson S . SCMR Position Paper (2020) on clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020; 22(1):76. PMC: 7649060. DOI: 10.1186/s12968-020-00682-4. View

Darty S, Jenista E, Kim R, Dyke C, Simonetti O, Radike M . Society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance recommendations for training and competency of CMR technologists. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2022; 24(1):68. PMC: 9721081. DOI: 10.1186/s12968-022-00900-1. View

Kim R, Simonetti O, Westwood M, Kramer C, Narang A, Friedrich M . Guidelines for training in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018; 20(1):57. PMC: 6094559. DOI: 10.1186/s12968-018-0481-8. View

Bustin A, Stuber M, Sermesant M, Cochet H . Smart cardiac magnetic resonance delivering one-click and comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular disease. Eur Heart J. 2023; 44(8):636-637. PMC: 9940986. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac814. View

Edalati M, Zheng Y, Watkins M, Chen J, Liu L, Zhang S . Implementation and prospective clinical validation of AI-based planning and shimming techniques in cardiac MRI. Med Phys. 2021; 49(1):129-143. PMC: 9299210. DOI: 10.1002/mp.15327. View

Xue H, Artico J, Fontana M, Moon J, Davies R, Kellman P . Landmark Detection in Cardiac MRI by Using a Convolutional Neural Network. Radiol Artif Intell. 2021; 3(5):e200197. PMC: 8489464. DOI: 10.1148/ryai.2021200197. View

Blansit K, Retson T, Masutani E, Bahrami N, Hsiao A . Deep Learning-based Prescription of Cardiac MRI Planes. Radiol Artif Intell. 2020; 1(6):e180069. PMC: 6884027. DOI: 10.1148/ryai.2019180069. View

Nitta S, Takeguchi T, Matsumoto N, Kuhara S, Yokoyama K, Ishimura R . Automatic slice alignment method for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. MAGMA. 2013; 26(5):451-61. DOI: 10.1007/s10334-012-0361-4. View

Lu X, Jolly M, Georgescu B, Haye C, Speier P, Schmidt M . Automatic view planning for cardiac MRI acquisition. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2011; 14(Pt 3):479-86. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-23626-6_59. View

10.

Lelieveldt B, van der Geest R, Lamb H, KAYSER H, Reiber J . Automated observer-independent acquisition of cardiac short-axis MR images: a pilot study. Radiology. 2001; 221(2):537-42. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2212010177. View

11.

Morales M, Manning W, Nezafat R . Present and Future Innovations in AI and Cardiac MRI. Radiology. 2024; 310(1):e231269. PMC: 10831479. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.231269. View

12.

Ohta Y, Tateishi E, Morita Y, Nishii T, Kotoku A, Horinouchi H . Optimization of null point in Look-Locker images for myocardial late gadolinium enhancement imaging using deep learning and a smartphone. Eur Radiol. 2023; 33(7):4688-4697. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09465-8. View

13.

Groschel J, Kuhnt J, Viezzer D, Hadler T, Hormes S, Barckow P . Comparison of manual and artificial intelligence based quantification of myocardial strain by feature tracking-a cardiovascular MR study in health and disease. Eur Radiol. 2023; 34(2):1003-1015. PMC: 10853310. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10127-y. View