COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Contrast-enhanced whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 T: comparison with steady-state free precession technique at 1.5 T

Xin Liu, Xiaoming Bi, Jie Huang, Renate Jerecic, James Carr, Debiao Li
Investigative Radiology 2008, 43 (9): 663-8
18708861

OBJECTIVES: To compare contrast-enhanced whole-heart coronary MR angiography (MRA) at 3.0 T and noncontrast steady-state free precession coronary MRA at 1.5 T in the same volunteers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine healthy volunteers underwent both coronary MRA using 3D FLASH with slow infusion of MultiHance at 3.0 T and 3D TrueFISP sequence at 1.5 T. Neither beta-blockers nor nitroglycerine was administered in any of the imaging sessions. The same spatial resolution and heart coverage were used at both field strengths. Acquisition time, signal-to-noise ratio of coronary blood, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between coronary blood and surrounding myocardium or connecting tissue, scores of image quality, coronary artery sharpness, and coverage of coronary segments for the 2 techniques were analyzed and statistically compared.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences in heart rate (68 +/- 10 vs. 63 +/- 6 beats/min, P > 0.05) and navigator efficiency (34.1% +/- 7.7% vs. 34.8% +/- 9.2%, P > 0.05) at 3.0 T and 1.5 T coronary MRA during the data acquisition. The average acquisition time of the 3.0 T coronary MRA was significantly shorter than that of the1.5 T coronary MRA (9.7 +/- 2.3 vs. 14.6 +/- 3.5, P < 0.05). The mean score of image quality and vessel sharpness at 3.0 T was similar to that at 1.5 T (2.8 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.0 +/- 1.0 and 0.63 +/- 0.15 vs. 0.61 +/- 0.13, respectively. P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the number of visible coronary segments of the major coronary arteries at 3.0 T and 1.5 T (64/81 vs. 62/81, P > 0.05). However, the number of visible main coronary branches at 3.0 T was significantly higher than that at 1.5 T (18/54 vs. 7/54, P < 0.05). The overall signal-to-noise ratio at 3.0 T was significantly lower than that at 1.5 T (40.9 +/- 4.7 vs. 60.9 +/- 3.4, P < 0.01), whereas the overall CNR at 3.0 T was significantly higher than that at 1.5 T (35.4 +/- 3.3 vs. 28.8 +/- 6.4, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced whole-heart coronary MRA at 3.0 T demonstrated less acquisition time, higher CNR, and better depiction of coronary segments compared with steady-state free precession coronary MRA at 1.5 T. Patient studies are required to evaluate the clinical value of the technique.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Trending Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
18708861
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"