Table 4.
Image quality in all cases of the three sequences
| Conventional LAVA | Turbo-LAVA | DISCO | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breath-hold failure | 21/149 (14.1%) | 26/216 (12.0%) | 52/250 (20.8%) |
| P-value | Control | 0.6340 | 0.1085 |
| No or mild artifact | 127/149 (85.2%) | 193/216 (89.4%) | 230/250 (92.0%) |
| P-value | Control | 0.2593 | 0.0424* |
| Adequate scan timing | 136/149 (91.3%) | 207/216 (95.8%) | 245/250 (98.0%) |
| P-value | Control | 0.0780 | 0.0025* |
| Diagnosable image | 117/149 (78.5%) | 186/216 (86.1%) | 225/250 (90.0%) |
| P-value | Control | 0.0657 | 0.0019* |
*
P < 0.05.
Data of Turbo-LAVA and DISCO were compared with those of conventional LAVA using the χ2-test. Categorical variables are expressed as percentage with numerators and denominators. DISCO, differential sub-sampling with Cartesian ordering; LAVA, liver acquisition with volume acceleration.