OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to prospectively compare measurement precision of calf intramyocellular lipid (IMCL) quantification at 3.0 and 1.5 T using (1)H magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((1)H-MRS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined the soleus and tibialis anterior (TA) muscles of 15 male adults [21-48 years of age, body mass index (BMI)=21.9-38.0 kg/m(2)]. Each subject underwent 3.0- and 1.5-T single-voxel, short-echo-time, point-resolved (1)H-MRS both at baseline and at 31-day follow-up. The IMCL methylene peak (1.3 ppm) was scaled to unsuppressed water peak (4.7 ppm) using the LCModel routine. Full width at half maximum (FWHM) and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of unsuppressed water peak were measured using jMRUI software. Measurement precision was tested by comparing interexamination coefficients of variation (CV) between different field strengths using Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test in all subjects. Overweight subjects (BMI>25 kg/m(2)) were analyzed separately to examine the benefits of 3.0-T acquisitions in subjects with increased adiposity. RESULTS: No significant difference between 3.0 and 1.5 T was noted in CVs for IMCL of soleus (P=.5). CVs of TA were significantly higher at 3.0 T (P=.02). SNR was significantly increased at 3.0 T for soleus (64%, P<.001) and TA (62%, P<.001) but was lower than the expected improvement of 100%. FWHM at 3.0 T was significantly increased for soleus (19%, P<.001) and TA (7%, P<.01). Separate analysis of overweight subjects showed no significant difference between 3.0- and 1.5-T CVs for IMCL of soleus (P=.8) and TA (P=.4). CONCLUSION: Using current technology, (1)H-MRS for IMCL at 3.0 T did not improve measurement precision, as compared with 1.5 T.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to prospectively compare measurement precision of calf intramyocellular lipid (IMCL) quantification at 3.0 and 1.5 T using (1)H magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((1)H-MRS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined the soleus and tibialis anterior (TA) muscles of 15 male adults [21-48 years of age, body mass index (BMI)=21.9-38.0 kg/m(2)]. Each subject underwent 3.0- and 1.5-T single-voxel, short-echo-time, point-resolved (1)H-MRS both at baseline and at 31-day follow-up. The IMCL methylene peak (1.3 ppm) was scaled to unsuppressed water peak (4.7 ppm) using the LCModel routine. Full width at half maximum (FWHM) and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of unsuppressed water peak were measured using jMRUI software. Measurement precision was tested by comparing interexamination coefficients of variation (CV) between different field strengths using Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test in all subjects. Overweight subjects (BMI>25 kg/m(2)) were analyzed separately to examine the benefits of 3.0-T acquisitions in subjects with increased adiposity. RESULTS: No significant difference between 3.0 and 1.5 T was noted in CVs for IMCL of soleus (P=.5). CVs of TA were significantly higher at 3.0 T (P=.02). SNR was significantly increased at 3.0 T for soleus (64%, P<.001) and TA (62%, P<.001) but was lower than the expected improvement of 100%. FWHM at 3.0 T was significantly increased for soleus (19%, P<.001) and TA (7%, P<.01). Separate analysis of overweight subjects showed no significant difference between 3.0- and 1.5-T CVs for IMCL of soleus (P=.8) and TA (P=.4). CONCLUSION: Using current technology, (1)H-MRS for IMCL at 3.0 T did not improve measurement precision, as compared with 1.5 T.
Authors: Garry E Gold; Eric Han; Jeff Stainsby; Graham Wright; Jean Brittain; Christopher Beaulieu Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Martin Torriani; Bijoy J Thomas; Elkan F Halpern; Megan E Jensen; Daniel I Rosenthal; William E Palmer Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Krssak; K Falk Petersen; A Dresner; L DiPietro; S M Vogel; D L Rothman; M Roden; G I Shulman Journal: Diabetologia Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Kejal Kantarci; Glenn Reynolds; Ronald C Petersen; Bradley F Boeve; David S Knopman; Steven D Edland; Glenn E Smith; Robert J Ivnik; Eric G Tangalos; Clifford R Jack Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.825