Update on the Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Congenital Heart Disease

  • Prabhakar Rajiah
  • Animesh Tandon
  • Gerald F. Greil
  • Suhny AbbaraEmail author
Imaging (Q Truong, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Imaging

Opinion statement

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is an important imaging modality in the evaluation of congenital heart diseases (CHD). CMR has several strengths including good spatial and temporal resolutions, wide field-of-view, and multi-planar imaging capabilities. CMR provides significant advantages for imaging in CHD through its ability to measure function, flow and vessel sizes, create three-dimensional reconstructions, and perform tissue characterization, all in a single imaging study. Thus, CMR is the most comprehensive imaging modality available today for the evaluation of CHD. Newer MRI sequences and post-processing tools will allow further development of quantitative methods of analysis, and opens the door for risk stratification in CHD. CMR also can interface with computer modeling, 3D printing, and other methods of understanding the complex anatomic and physiologic relationships in CHD.


MRI Congenital Heart Imaging 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Prabhakar Rajiah reports a grant from Philips Healthcare.

Animesh Tandon and Gerald F. Greil each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Suhny Abbara reports personal fees from Reed Elsevier and grants from Koninklijke Philips NV and Siemens AG.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

4d flow imaging through the heart shows the flow pathlines in a patient with d-transposition of the great arteries, who underwent arterial switch with LeCompte maneuver. (AVI 261198 kb)

11936_2017_504_MOESM2_ESM.avi (36.1 mb)
Video 2 Time-resolved MR angiography. Coronal reconstructed MIP images from a time-resolved MR angiography demonstrates dynamic visualization of contrast through the blood vessels in the chest and lower neck. (AVI 36984 kb)

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance•• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Babu-Narayan SV et al. Imaging of congenital heart disease in adults. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(15):1182–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prakash A, Powell AJ, Geva T. Multimodality noninvasive imaging for assessment of congenital heart disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(1):112–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen MS et al. Multimodality imaging guidelines of patients with transposition of the great arteries: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016;29(7):571–621.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Valente AM et al. Multimodality imaging guidelines for patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography: developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance and the Society for Pediatric Radiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014;27(2):111–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lopez L et al. Recommendations for quantification methods during the performance of a pediatric echocardiogram: a report from the pediatric measurements writing group of the American Society of Echocardiography Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease Council. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23(5):465–95. quiz 576–467.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stern KW et al. The impact of procedural sedation on diagnostic errors in pediatric echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014;27(9):949–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harbron RW et al. Radiation doses from fluoroscopically guided cardiac catheterization procedures in children and young adults in the United Kingdom: a multicentre study. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1048):20140852.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cevallos PC et al. Implementation of methodology for quality improvement in pediatric cardiac catheterization: a multi-center initiative by the Congenital Cardiac Catheterization Project on Outcomes-Quality Improvement (C3PO-QI). Pediatr Cardiol. 2016.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kulkarni A et al. Computed tomography in congenital heart disease: clinical applications and technical considerations. Echocardiography. 2016;33(4):629–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vyas HV, Greenberg SB, Krishnamurthy R. MR imaging and CT evaluation of congenital pulmonary vein abnormalities in neonates and infants. Radiographics. 2012;32(1):87–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raimondi F, Warin-Fresse K. Computed tomography imaging in children with congenital heart disease: indications and radiation dose optimization. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2016;109(2):150–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson JN et al. Cumulative radiation exposure and cancer risk estimation in children with heart disease. Circulation. 2014;130(2):161–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghoshhajra BB et al. Radiation dose reduction in pediatric cardiac computed tomography: experience from a tertiary medical center. Pediatr Cardiol. 2014;35(1):171–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kilner PJ. Imaging congenital heart disease in adults. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(Spec No 3):S258–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    •• Fratz S et al. Guidelines and protocols for cardiovascular magnetic resonance in children and adults with congenital heart disease: SCMR expert consensus group on congenital heart disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15:51. This SCMR consensus document provides guidelines and protocols for CMR in patients with congenital heart disease.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.•
    Valsangiacomo Buechel ER et al. Indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance in children with congenital and acquired heart disease: an expert consensus paper of the Imaging Working Group of the AEPC and the cardiovascular magnetic resonance section of the EACVI. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16(3):281–97. This is the expert consensus paper of the EACVI and AEPC, which also provides guidelines on using CMR in children.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shariat M et al. Utility of feed-and-sleep cardiovascular magnetic resonance in young infants with complex cardiovascular disease. Pediatr Cardiol. 2015;36(4):809–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cross R et al. Improved workflow for quantification of left ventricular volumes and mass using free-breathing motion corrected cine imaging. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seo H et al. Self-gated cardiac cine imaging using phase information. Magn Reson Med. 2016.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reiter T et al. Minimizing risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14(31).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gold MR et al. Full-body MRI in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: primary results of a randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(24):2581–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olivieri LJ et al. Optimized protocols for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with thoracic metallic implants. Pediatr Radiol. 2015;45(10):1455–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rajiah P, Bolen MA. Cardiovascular MR imaging at 3 T: opportunities, challenges, and solutions. Radiographics. 2014;34(6):1612–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nguyen KL et al. High-field MR imaging in pediatric congenital heart disease: initial results. Pediatr Radiol. 2015;45(1):42–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tsao J, Kozerke S. MRI temporal acceleration techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36(3):543–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wright KL et al. Non-Cartesian parallel imaging reconstruction. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;40(5):1022–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deshmane A et al. Parallel MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36(1):55–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kozerke S, Plein S. Accelerated CMR using zonal, parallel and prior knowledge driven imaging methods. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2008;10(1):1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Luijnenburg SE et al. Intra-observer and interobserver variability of biventricular function, volumes and mass in patients with congenital heart disease measured by CMR imaging. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;26(1):57–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Atweh LA et al. Comparison of two single-breath-held 3-D acquisitions with multi-breath-held 2-D cine steady-state free precession MRI acquisition in children with single ventricles. Pediatr Radiol. 2016;46(5):637–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Aandal G et al. Evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction using through-time radial GRAPPA. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014;16:79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kido T et al. Compressed sensing real-time cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance: accurate assessment of left ventricular function in a single-breath-hold. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vincenti G et al. Compressed sensing single-breath-hold CMR for fast quantification of LV function, volumes, and mass. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2014;7(9):882–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kido T et al. Compressed sensing real-time cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance: accurate assessment of left ventricular function in a single-breath-hold. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18(1):50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krishnamurthy R et al. Unsupervised free-breathing 3D imaging of morphology, function and flow in congenital heart disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014;16 Suppl 1:P134.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Barkauskas KJ et al. Quantification of left ventricular functional parameter values using 3D spiral bSSFP and through-time non-Cartesian GRAPPA. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014;16:65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Makowski MR et al. Single breath-hold assessment of cardiac function using an accelerated 3D single breath-hold acquisition technique—comparison of an intravascular and extravascular contrast agent. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14(1):53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dallaire F et al. Pediatric reference values and Z score equations for left ventricular systolic strain measured by two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016;29(8):786–793.e788.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Levy PT et al. Reference ranges of left ventricular strain measures by two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016;29(3):209–225.e206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ordovas KG et al. Impaired regional left ventricular strain after repair of tetralogy of Fallot. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(1):79–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Muzzarelli S et al. Tetralogy of Fallot: impact of the excursion of the interventricular septum on left ventricular systolic function and fibrosis after surgical repair. Radiology. 2011;259(2):375–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Orwat S et al. Myocardial deformation parameters predict outcome in patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot. Heart. 2016;102(3):209–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Latus H et al. Impact of residual right ventricular outflow tract obstruction on biventricular strain and synchrony in patients after repair of tetralogy of Fallot: a cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking study. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg: Off J Eur Assoc Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2015;48(1):83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lipczynska M et al. Global longitudinal strain may identify preserved systolic function of the systemic right ventricle. Can J Cardiol. 2015;31(6):760–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tutarel O et al. Assessment of myocardial function using MRI-based feature tracking in adults after atrial repair of transposition of the great arteries: reference values and clinical utility. Int J Cardiol. 2016;220:246–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schmidt R et al. Value of speckle-tracking echocardiography and MRI-based feature tracking analysis in adult patients after Fontan-type palliation. Congenit Heart Dis. 2014;9(5):397–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fogel MA et al. A study in ventricular-ventricular interaction. Single right ventricles compared with systemic right ventricles in a dual-chamber circulation. Circulation. 1995;92(2):219–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shang Q et al.. Assessment of ventriculo-vascular properties in repaired coarctation using cardiac magnetic resonance-derived aortic, left atrial and left ventricular strain. Eur Radiol. 2016.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Young AA et al. Temporal evolution of left ventricular strain late after repair of coarctation of the aorta using 3D MR tissue tagging. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2002;4(2):233–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ntsinjana HN, Hughes ML, Taylor AM. The role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in pediatric congenital heart disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2011;13:51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Srichai MB et al. Cardiovascular applications of phase-contrast MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(3):662–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Valverde I et al. 4D phase-contrast flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance: comprehensive quantification and visualization of flow dynamics in atrial septal defect and partial anomalous pulmonary venous return. Pediatr Cardiol. 2010;31(8):1244–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hope MD et al. Clinical evaluation of aortic coarctation with 4D flow MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(3):711–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hope MD et al. 4D flow CMR in assessment of valve-related ascending aortic disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4(7):781–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Geiger J et al. 4D-MR flow analysis in patients after repair for tetralogy of Fallot. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(8):1651–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Francois CJ et al. 4D cardiovascular magnetic resonance velocity mapping of alterations of right heart flow patterns and main pulmonary artery hemodynamics in tetralogy of Fallot. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14(16).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Whitehead KK et al. Blood flow distribution in a large series of patients having the Fontan operation: a cardiac magnetic resonance velocity mapping study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;138(1):96–102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Markl M et al. Time-resolved three-dimensional magnetic resonance velocity mapping of cardiovascular flow paths in volunteers and patients with Fontan circulation. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg: Off J Eur Assoc Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2011;39(2):206–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Markl M et al. 4D flow MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36(5):1015–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Greenwood JP et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet (London, England). 2012;379(9814):453–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Coelho-Filho OR et al. MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Radiology. 2013;266(3):701–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cnota JF et al. Cardiovascular physiology during supine cycle ergometry and dobutamine stress. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(9):1503–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Manka R et al. Multicenter evaluation of dynamic three-dimensional magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging for the detection of coronary artery disease defined by fractional flow reserve. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(5).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Valverde I et al. Cardiovascular MR dobutamine stress in adult tetralogy of Fallot: disparity between CMR volumetry and flow for cardiovascular function. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;33(6):1341–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Robbers-Visser D et al. Usefulness of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging combined with low-dose dobutamine stress to detect an abnormal ventricular stress response in children and young adults after Fontan operation at young age. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101(11):1657–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ordovas KG, Higgins CB. Delayed contrast enhancement on MR images of myocardium: past, present, future. Radiology. 2011;261(2):358–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Etesami M, Gilkeson RC, Rajiah P. Utility of late gadolinium enhancement in pediatric cardiac MRI. Pediatr Radiol. 2016;46(8):1096–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Taylor AM et al. MR coronary angiography and late-enhancement myocardial MR in children who underwent arterial switch surgery for transposition of great arteries. Radiology. 2005;234(2):542–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rathod RH et al. Myocardial fibrosis identified by cardiac magnetic resonance late gadolinium enhancement is associated with adverse ventricular mechanics and ventricular tachycardia late after Fontan operation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(16):1721–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rathod RH et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance parameters predict transplantation-free survival in patients with fontan circulation. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(3):502–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Babu-Narayan SV et al. Ventricular fibrosis suggested by cardiovascular magnetic resonance in adults with repaired tetralogy of Fallot and its relationship to adverse markers of clinical outcome. Circulation. 2006;113(3):405–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Babu-Narayan SV et al. Late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance of the systemic right ventricle in adults with previous atrial redirection surgery for transposition of the great arteries. Circulation. 2005;111(16):2091–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Broberg CS et al. Myocardial fibrosis in Eisenmenger syndrome: a descriptive cohort study exploring associations of late gadolinium enhancement with clinical status and survival. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2014;16(32).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Olivieri L et al. Free-breathing motion-corrected late-gadolinium-enhancement imaging improves image quality in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2016;46(7):983–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Menon RG et al. Free breathing three-dimensional late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance using outer volume suppressed projection navigators. Magn Reson Med. 2016.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Moon JC et al. Myocardial T1 mapping and extracellular volume quantification: a Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) and CMR working group of the European Society of Cardiology consensus statement. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Broberg CS et al. Quantification of diffuse myocardial fibrosis and its association with myocardial dysfunction in congenital heart disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(6):727–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kozak MF et al. Diffuse myocardial fibrosis following tetralogy of Fallot repair: a T1 mapping cardiac magnetic resonance study. Pediatr Radiol. 2014;44(4):403–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Broberg CS et al. Diffuse LV myocardial fibrosis and its clinical associations in adults with repaired tetralogy of Fallot. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(1):86–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Chen CA et al. Myocardial ECV fraction assessed by CMR is associated with type of hemodynamic load and arrhythmia in repaired tetralogy of Fallot. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(1):1–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Plymen CM et al. Diffuse myocardial fibrosis in the systemic right ventricle of patients late after Mustard or Senning surgery: an equilibrium contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;14(10):963–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Dusenbery SM et al. Myocardial extracellular remodeling is associated with ventricular diastolic dysfunction in children and young adults with congenital aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(17):1778–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Riesenkampff E et al. Myocardial T1 mapping in pediatric and congenital heart disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(2):e002504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Macgowan CK et al. Optimization of 3D contrast-enhanced pulmonary magnetic resonance angiography in pediatric patients with congenital heart disease. Magn Reson Med. 2005;54(1):207–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Naehle CP et al. First-pass and steady-state MR angiography of thoracic vasculature in children and adolescents. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2010;3(5):504–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Krishnamurthy R, Bahouth SM, Muthupillai R. 4D contrast-enhanced MR angiography with the keyhole technique in children: technique and clinical applications. Radiographics. 2016;36(2):523–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Makowski MR et al. Congenital heart disease: cardiovascular MR imaging by using an intravascular blood pool contrast agent. Radiology. 2011;260(3):680–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Rajiah P et al. Utility of free-breathing, whole-heart, three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of coronary anatomy for congenital heart disease. Pediatr Cardiol. 2011;32(4):418–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Dedieu LDN, Makowski MR, Vieira MSN, Hussain T, Wong J, Razavi R, et al. Coronary artery imaging in patients with congenital heart disease: improved image quality using an intravascular contrast agent and specific magnetic resonance sequence design. Clin Med Rev Case Rep. 2016;3(2):092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Henningsson M et al. Whole-heart coronary MR angiography using image-based navigation for the detection of coronary anomalies in adult patients with congenital heart disease. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;43(4):947–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Monney P et al. Single centre experience of the application of self navigated 3D whole heart cardiovascular magnetic resonance for the assessment of cardiac anatomy in congenital heart disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015;17:55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Henningsson M et al. Whole-heart coronary MR angiography with 2D self-navigated image reconstruction. Magn Reson Med. 2012;67(2):437–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Henningsson M et al. Whole-heart coronary MRA with 3D affine motion correction using 3D image-based navigation. Magn Reson Med. 2014;71(1):173–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Aitken AP et al. 100% Efficient three-dimensional coronary MR angiography with two-dimensional beat-to-beat translational and bin-to-bin affine motion correction. Magn Reson Med. 2015;74(3):756–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    He Y et al. Diagnostic performance of self-navigated whole-heart contrast-enhanced coronary 3-T MR angiography. Radiology. 2016;152514.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Piccini D et al. Four-dimensional respiratory motion-resolved whole heart coronary MR angiography. Magn Reson Med. 2016.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Cruz G et al. Highly efficient nonrigid motion-corrected 3D whole-heart coronary vessel wall imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2016.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Andia ME et al. Flow-independent 3D whole-heart vessel wall imaging using an interleaved T2-preparation acquisition. Magn Reson Med. 2013;69(1):150–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Sorensen TS et al. Operator-independent isotropic three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging for morphology in congenital heart disease: a validation study. Circulation. 2004;110(2):163–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Giannopoulos AA et al. Cardiothoracic applications of 3-dimensional printing. J Thorac Imaging. 2016;31(5):253–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Greil GF et al. Stereolithographic reproduction of complex cardiac morphology based on high spatial resolution imaging. Clin Res Cardiol. 2007;96(3):176–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Mitsouras D et al. Medical 3D printing for the radiologist. RadioGraphics. 2015;35(7):1965–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Thabit O, Yoo S-J. Rapid prototyping of cardiac models: current utilization and future directions. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14 Suppl 1:T13.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Costello JP et al. Utilizing three-dimensional printing technology to assess the feasibility of high-fidelity synthetic ventricular septal defect models for simulation in medical education. World J Pediat Cong Heart Surg. 2014;5(3):421–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Biglino G et al. 3D-manufactured patient-specific models of congenital heart defects for communication in clinical practice: feasibility and acceptability. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e007165.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Olivieri LJ et al. Three-dimensional printing of intracardiac defects from three-dimensional echocardiographic images: feasibility and relative accuracy. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28(4):392–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Schmauss D et al. Three-dimensional printing in cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology: a single-centre experience. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg: Off J Eur Assoc Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2015;47(6):1044–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Schievano S et al. Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation based on rapid prototyping of right ventricular outflow tract and pulmonary trunk from MR data. Radiology. 2007;242(2):490–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Byrne N et al. A systematic review of image segmentation methodology, used in the additive manufacture of patient-specific 3D printed models of the cardiovascular system. JRSM Cardiovasc Dis. 2016;5(2048004016645467).Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Tandon A et al. Use of a semi-automated cardiac segmentation tool improves reproducibility and speed of segmentation of contaminated right heart magnetic resonance angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Pace DF et al. Interactive whole-heart segmentation in congenital heart disease. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2015;9351(80).Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Glockler M et al. Multimodality 3D-roadmap for cardiovascular interventions in congenital heart disease—a single-center, retrospective analysis of 78 cases. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82(3):436–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Abu Hazeem AA et al. X-ray magnetic resonance fusion modality may reduce radiation exposure and contrast dose in diagnostic cardiac catheterization of congenital heart disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;84(5):795–800.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Pushparajah K et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance catheterization derived pulmonary vascular resistance and medium-term outcomes in congenital heart disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015;17(28).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prabhakar Rajiah
    • 1
  • Animesh Tandon
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Gerald F. Greil
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Suhny Abbara
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Cardiothoracic ImagingUT Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  2. 2.Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of PediatricsUT Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s HealthDallasUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUT Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations