RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this report is to investigate the magnetic field dependence of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for carotid vessel wall magnetic resonance imaging using phased-array (PA) surface coils by comparing images obtained at 1.5 and 3 Tesla (T) and determine the extent to which the improved SNR at the higher field can be traded for improved spatial resolution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two pairs of dual-element PA coils were constructed for operation at the two field strengths. The individual elements of each PA were matched to 50 Omega impedance on the neck and tuned at the respective frequencies. The coils were evaluated on a cylindrical phantom positioned with its axis parallel to the main field and the coils placed on either side of the phantom parallel to the sagittal plane. In vivo magnetic resonance images of the carotid arteries were obtained in five subjects at both field strengths with a fast spin-echo double-inversion black-blood pulse sequence with fat saturation. SNR was measured at both field strengths by using standard techniques. RESULTS: At a depth corresponding to the average location of the carotid arteries in the study subjects, mean phantom SNR for the two coils was higher at 3 T by a factor of 2.5. The greater than linear increase is caused by only partial coil loading of these relatively small coils. The practically achievable average SNR gain in vivo was 2.1. The lower in vivo SNR gain is attributed to a reduction in T2 and prolongation of T1 at the higher field strength and, to a lesser extent, the requirement for a decreased refocusing pulse flip angle to operate within specific absorption rate limits. The superior SNR at 3 T appears to provide considerably improved vessel-wall delineation. CONCLUSIONS: Carotid artery vessel-wall magnetic resonance imaging using PA surface coils provides a considerable increase in SNR when field strength is increased from 1.5 to 3 T. This increase can be traded for enhanced in-plane resolution.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this report is to investigate the magnetic field dependence of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for carotid vessel wall magnetic resonance imaging using phased-array (PA) surface coils by comparing images obtained at 1.5 and 3 Tesla (T) and determine the extent to which the improved SNR at the higher field can be traded for improved spatial resolution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two pairs of dual-element PA coils were constructed for operation at the two field strengths. The individual elements of each PA were matched to 50 Omega impedance on the neck and tuned at the respective frequencies. The coils were evaluated on a cylindrical phantom positioned with its axis parallel to the main field and the coils placed on either side of the phantom parallel to the sagittal plane. In vivo magnetic resonance images of the carotid arteries were obtained in five subjects at both field strengths with a fast spin-echo double-inversion black-blood pulse sequence with fat saturation. SNR was measured at both field strengths by using standard techniques. RESULTS: At a depth corresponding to the average location of the carotid arteries in the study subjects, mean phantom SNR for the two coils was higher at 3 T by a factor of 2.5. The greater than linear increase is caused by only partial coil loading of these relatively small coils. The practically achievable average SNR gain in vivo was 2.1. The lower in vivo SNR gain is attributed to a reduction in T2 and prolongation of T1 at the higher field strength and, to a lesser extent, the requirement for a decreased refocusing pulse flip angle to operate within specific absorption rate limits. The superior SNR at 3 T appears to provide considerably improved vessel-wall delineation. CONCLUSIONS: Carotid artery vessel-wall magnetic resonance imaging using PA surface coils provides a considerable increase in SNR when field strength is increased from 1.5 to 3 T. This increase can be traded for enhanced in-plane resolution.
Authors: J T Vaughan; M Garwood; C M Collins; W Liu; L DelaBarre; G Adriany; P Andersen; H Merkle; R Goebel; M B Smith; K Ugurbil Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Z A Fayad; V Fuster; J T Fallon; T Jayasundera; S G Worthley; G Helft; J G Aguinaldo; J J Badimon; S K Sharma Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-08-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mushabbar A Syed; John N Oshinski; Charles Kitchen; Arshad Ali; Richard J Charnigo; Arshed A Quyyumi Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Andreas Harloff; Timo Zech; Alex Frydrychowicz; Martin Schumacher; Joachim Schöllhorn; Jürgen Hennig; Cornelius Weiller; Michael Markl Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-02-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: V E Young; A J Patterson; E M Tunnicliffe; U Sadat; M J Graves; T Y Tang; A N Priest; P J Kirkpatrick; J H Gillard Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Jeffrey D Bodle; Edward Feldmann; Richard H Swartz; Zoran Rumboldt; Truman Brown; Tanya N Turan Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Michael C Langham; Cheng Li; Erin K Englund; Erica N Chirico; Emile R Mohler; Thomas F Floyd; Felix W Wehrli Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Li Dong; William S Kerwin; Marina S Ferguson; Rui Li; Jinnan Wang; Huijun Chen; Gador Canton; Thomas S Hatsukami; Chun Yuan Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 5.364