PURPOSE: To compare image quality, artifacts, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in cardiac cine TrueFISP magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with and without parallel acquisition techniques (PAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI was performed in 16 subjects with a TrueFISP sequence (1.5 T; Magnetom Sonata, Siemens): TR, 3.0 msec; TE, 1.5 msec; flip angle (FA), 60 degrees. Three axes were scanned without PAT (no PAT) and using the generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) and modified sensitivity encoding (mSENSE) reconstruction algorithms with an autocalibration mode to reduce scan time. A conventional spine array and a body flex array were used. Artifacts, image noise, and overall image quality were classified on a 4-point scale by an observer blinded to the implemented technique; for quantitative comparison, SNR was measured. RESULTS: With a PAT factor of two, acquisition time could be reduced by 39%. No PAT did not show artifacts, and GRAPPA revealed fewer artifacts than mSENSE. PAT provided inferior-quality scores concerning image noise and overall image quality. In quantitative measurements, GRAPPA and mSENSE (20.1 +/- 6.2 and 15.6 +/- 6.2, respectively) yielded lower SNR than no PAT (30.6 +/- 20.1; P < 0.05) and P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Time savings in PAT are accompanied by artifacts and an increase in image noise. The GRAPPA algorithm was superior to mSENSE concerning image quality, noise, and SNR. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To compare image quality, artifacts, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in cardiac cine TrueFISP magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with and without parallel acquisition techniques (PAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI was performed in 16 subjects with a TrueFISP sequence (1.5 T; Magnetom Sonata, Siemens): TR, 3.0 msec; TE, 1.5 msec; flip angle (FA), 60 degrees. Three axes were scanned without PAT (no PAT) and using the generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) and modified sensitivity encoding (mSENSE) reconstruction algorithms with an autocalibration mode to reduce scan time. A conventional spine array and a body flex array were used. Artifacts, image noise, and overall image quality were classified on a 4-point scale by an observer blinded to the implemented technique; for quantitative comparison, SNR was measured. RESULTS: With a PAT factor of two, acquisition time could be reduced by 39%. No PAT did not show artifacts, and GRAPPA revealed fewer artifacts than mSENSE. PAT provided inferior-quality scores concerning image noise and overall image quality. In quantitative measurements, GRAPPA and mSENSE (20.1 +/- 6.2 and 15.6 +/- 6.2, respectively) yielded lower SNR than no PAT (30.6 +/- 20.1; P < 0.05) and P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Time savings in PAT are accompanied by artifacts and an increase in image noise. The GRAPPA algorithm was superior to mSENSE concerning image quality, noise, and SNR. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Bernd J Wintersperger; Spencer Sincleair; Val M Runge; Olaf Dietrich; Armin Huber; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-04-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kai Nassenstein; Holger Eberle; Stefan Maderwald; Christoph J Jensen; Christina Heilmaier; Thomas Schlosser; Oliver Bruder Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 5.315