Background: Accurate plane positioning is important for high-quality cardiac MRI images but requires specialized training, limiting accessibility.
Purpose: To evaluate an automated plane positioning tool and compare it with manual planning.
Study type: Prospective.
Population: 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.
Field strength/sequence: Steady state free precession cine sequence at 1.5 T.
Assessment: 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.
Statistical analysis: Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank tests and Bland-Altman analyses, significance level at p ≤ 0.05.
Results: 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.
Data conclusion: Automated plane positioning for cardiac MRI may provide high-quality images and accurate volumetric assessment comparable to manual planning.
Evidence level: 2.
Technical efficacy: Stage 2.
Keywords: artificial intelligence; automated workflow; cardiac.
Accurate plane positioning is important for high‐quality cardiac MRI images and requires special training. This study evaluated an automated prescription method versus manual planning in 57 healthy volunteers and 20 patients. In healthy subjects, both methods provided good to excellent quality of planes without significant differences. Volumetric parameters from automatically planned images highly correlate with those from manual planes showing minimal bias without significant deviations. In patients, 91% of automatically prescribed image planes required no manual adjustments, and only minor changes were needed in the remaining 9%. Automated plane positioning may provide high‐quality images promising to simplify cardiac MRI acquisition.
© 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.