PURPOSE: We sought to assess the feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate cardiac function at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a prospective intraindividual comparative study, 12 volunteers (range, 18-54 years), and 2 patients (range, 43-53 years) underwent cardiac cine magnetic resonance at both 3.0 T and 1.5 T. Data were acquired both with a steady-state free precession sequence (SSFP) and a spoiled gradient echo (SGE) sequence. If necessary, a frequency scout was used to correct for off-resonance artifacts. For both SSFP and SGE imaging, 6-mm thick retrospectively EKG-gated short axis views were acquired with equal matrix size (192 x 163) and comparable repetition time (TR). Cardiac function parameters were determined manually by a single investigator. Cardiac function parameters, signal to noise ratio (SNR), contrast to noise ratio (CNR), and the presence of artifacts were compared between the 2 magnetic field strengths. For statistical analysis, a Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated, and a paired Student t test was used to test statistical significance. RESULTS: Very good correlations between cardiac function parameters at 1.5 T and 3.0 T (r > 0.84, P < 0.0011) were obtained. Compared with SGE, SSFP more frequently was prone to artifacts. With SSFP/SGE at 3.0 T, a SNR gain of 9.4/16% was achieved compared with 1.5 T. CONCLUSION: Functional cardiac cine magnetic resonance imaging can be regarded as equally accurate at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T. Compared with SSFP imaging, the SGE sequence benefits more from higher field strengths and is less affected by artifacts.
PURPOSE: We sought to assess the feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate cardiac function at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a prospective intraindividual comparative study, 12 volunteers (range, 18-54 years), and 2 patients (range, 43-53 years) underwent cardiac cine magnetic resonance at both 3.0 T and 1.5 T. Data were acquired both with a steady-state free precession sequence (SSFP) and a spoiled gradient echo (SGE) sequence. If necessary, a frequency scout was used to correct for off-resonance artifacts. For both SSFP and SGE imaging, 6-mm thick retrospectively EKG-gated short axis views were acquired with equal matrix size (192 x 163) and comparable repetition time (TR). Cardiac function parameters were determined manually by a single investigator. Cardiac function parameters, signal to noise ratio (SNR), contrast to noise ratio (CNR), and the presence of artifacts were compared between the 2 magnetic field strengths. For statistical analysis, a Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated, and a paired Student t test was used to test statistical significance. RESULTS: Very good correlations between cardiac function parameters at 1.5 T and 3.0 T (r > 0.84, P < 0.0011) were obtained. Compared with SGE, SSFP more frequently was prone to artifacts. With SSFP/SGE at 3.0 T, a SNR gain of 9.4/16% was achieved compared with 1.5 T. CONCLUSION: Functional cardiac cine magnetic resonance imaging can be regarded as equally accurate at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T. Compared with SSFP imaging, the SGE sequence benefits more from higher field strengths and is less affected by artifacts.
Authors: Torleif A Sandner; Philip Houck; Val M Runge; Spencer Sincleair; Armin M Huber; Daniel Theisen; Maximilian F Reiser; Bernd J Wintersperger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-05-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jens Vogel-Claussen; Monda L Shehata; Dirk Lossnitzer; Jan Skrok; Sukhminder Singh; Danielle Boyce; Noah Lechtzin; Reda E Girgis; Stephen C Mathai; Joao A Lima; David A Bluemke; Paul M Hassoun Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Andrew C Smith; Todd B Parrish; Rebecca Abbott; Mark A Hoggarth; Karl Mendoza; Yu Fen Chen; James M Elliott Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: D Thomas; C Meyer; K Strach; C P Naehle; J Mazraeh; T Gampert; H H Schild; T Sommer Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: G Ligabue; F Fiocchi; S Ferraresi; A Barbieri; R Rossi; M G Modena; R Romagnoli; P Torricelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2008-07-09 Impact factor: 3.469