Back to all papers

Fully Automated Plane Prescription in Cardiac MRI: A Prospective Cohort Study.

November 30, 2025pubmed logopapers

Authors

Böttcher B,Meinel FG,Deyerberg KK,Watzke LM,Manzke M,Gorodezky M,Delso G,Dalmer A,Nerger A,Weber MA,Klemenz AC

Affiliations (3)

  • Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
  • GE HealthCare, Munich, Germany.
  • GE HealthCare, Barcelona, Spain.

Abstract

Accurate plane positioning is important for high-quality cardiac MRI images but requires specialized training, limiting accessibility. To evaluate an automated plane positioning tool and compare it with manual planning. Prospective. Fifty-seven healthy volunteers (28 males; median age 42 years) and 20 consecutive patients (15 males; median age 61 years) scheduled for clinical cardiac MRI. Steady state free precession cine sequence at 1.5 T. In volunteers, short-axis (SAX), 2-chamber (2CH), 3-chamber (3CH), and 4-chamber (4CH) cine images were acquired using both automated and manual prescription. Two blinded radiologists (5 and 6 years of clinical cardiac MRI experience) rated plane quality on a Likert scale (1 = nondiagnostic to 5 = excellent). Mean plane angle differences between manual and automated prescriptions were calculated. Left and right ventricular end-systolic volume (ESV), end-diastolic volume (EDV), stroke volume (SV), and ejection fraction (EF) were compared. In patients, the number of required manual corrections to automated prescriptions was recorded. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank tests and Bland-Altman analyses, significance level at p ≤ 0.05. Automated plane positioning was successful in all volunteers. Image plane quality did not differ significantly between automated (mean score 4.64) and manual prescription (4.62, p = 0.812). Mean angle differences were 6.7° ± 4.3° (SAX), 10.3° ± 5.8° (2CH), 8.9° ± 5.1° (3CH), and 8.0° ± 4.8° (4CH). Volumetric parameters showed no significant differences between both planning methods with mean biases being -0.5 mL, p = 0.305 (LVEDV), 0.5 mL, p = 0.683 (LVESV), -1.0 mL, p = 0.168 (LVSV) and 0.4%, and p = 0.215 (LVEF). In patients, 8.8% (7/80) of automatically prescribed planes required minor corrections; 91.2% (73/80) were accepted without adjustments. Automated plane positioning for cardiac MRI may provide high-quality images and accurate volumetric assessment comparable to manual planning. 2. Stage 2.

Topics

Journal Article

Ready to Sharpen Your Edge?

Join hundreds of your peers who rely on RadAI Slice. Get the essential weekly briefing that empowers you to navigate the future of radiology.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.