PURPOSE: To prospectively compare three-dimensional (3D) contrast material-enhanced abdominal magnetic resonance (MR) angiography at 1.5 and 3.0 T intraindividually in healthy volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained, 15 healthy male volunteers (age range, 24-41 years) underwent one abdominal 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiographic examination each at 1.5 and 3.0 T in random order. Fast 3D gradient-echo sequence with parallel imaging acceleration factor of three was used for MR angiography; acquired spatial resolutions were 1x0.8x1 mm3 (imaging time, 19 seconds) at 1.5 T and 0.9x0.8x0.9 mm3 (imaging time, 18 seconds) at 3.0 T. With the latter, volume of the 3D slab was 8% larger. At 1.5 T, 20-mL bolus of gadobenate dimeglumine was delivered at 2 mL/sec; at 3.0 T, 15-mL bolus was delivered at 2.5 mL/sec. Two blinded radiologists rated image quality of aorta and proximal renal arteries in consensus with five-point scale (4=very good, 0=nondiagnostic) according to sequence and in direct intraindividual comparison. Visibility of proximal and segmental renal arteries was rated with three-point scale (3=completely visible, 1=nonvisible). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was determined with phantoms. For statistical analysis of the SNRs, t tests were used. RESULTS: All MR angiographic measurements were diagnostic. Median score for image quality at both field strengths was 4. Depiction of proximal renal arteries was rated 3 at both field strengths. The visibility of the distal renal arteries was better at 3.0 T (median score, 3) than at 1.5 T (median score, 2). With direct comparison, 3.0-T MR angiography was better in 14 of 15 cases; no field strength was preferred in the other case. Mean SNR was significantly (P<.001) higher at 3.0 T (17.8+/-0.09 [standard deviation]) than at 1.5 T (11.9+/-0.10). CONCLUSION: MR angiography at 3.0 T provided better vessel visibility and SNR than did that at 1.5 T, although voxel size and imaging time were reduced. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2007.
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare three-dimensional (3D) contrast material-enhanced abdominal magnetic resonance (MR) angiography at 1.5 and 3.0 T intraindividually in healthy volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained, 15 healthy male volunteers (age range, 24-41 years) underwent one abdominal 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiographic examination each at 1.5 and 3.0 T in random order. Fast 3D gradient-echo sequence with parallel imaging acceleration factor of three was used for MR angiography; acquired spatial resolutions were 1x0.8x1 mm3 (imaging time, 19 seconds) at 1.5 T and 0.9x0.8x0.9 mm3 (imaging time, 18 seconds) at 3.0 T. With the latter, volume of the 3D slab was 8% larger. At 1.5 T, 20-mL bolus of gadobenate dimeglumine was delivered at 2 mL/sec; at 3.0 T, 15-mL bolus was delivered at 2.5 mL/sec. Two blinded radiologists rated image quality of aorta and proximal renal arteries in consensus with five-point scale (4=very good, 0=nondiagnostic) according to sequence and in direct intraindividual comparison. Visibility of proximal and segmental renal arteries was rated with three-point scale (3=completely visible, 1=nonvisible). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was determined with phantoms. For statistical analysis of the SNRs, t tests were used. RESULTS: All MR angiographic measurements were diagnostic. Median score for image quality at both field strengths was 4. Depiction of proximal renal arteries was rated 3 at both field strengths. The visibility of the distal renal arteries was better at 3.0 T (median score, 3) than at 1.5 T (median score, 2). With direct comparison, 3.0-T MR angiography was better in 14 of 15 cases; no field strength was preferred in the other case. Mean SNR was significantly (P<.001) higher at 3.0 T (17.8+/-0.09 [standard deviation]) than at 1.5 T (11.9+/-0.10). CONCLUSION: MR angiography at 3.0 T provided better vessel visibility and SNR than did that at 1.5 T, although voxel size and imaging time were reduced. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2007.
Authors: Christopher J François; Darren P Lum; Kevin M Johnson; Benjamin R Landgraf; Thorsten A Bley; Scott B Reeder; Mark L Schiebler; Thomas M Grist; Oliver Wieben Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-10-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Alex Frydrychowicz; Scott K Nagle; Sharon L D'Souza; Karl K Vigen; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: L Umutlu; S Maderwald; S Kinner; O Kraff; A K Bitz; S Orzada; S Johst; K Wrede; M Forsting; M E Ladd; T C Lauenstein; H H Quick Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-10-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ulrike I Attenberger; John N Morelli; Stefan O Schoenberg; Henrik J Michaely Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Frank Joseph Londy; Suzan Lowe; Paul D Stein; John G Weg; Robert L Eisner; Kenneth V Leeper; Pamela K Woodard; H Dirk Sostman; Kathleen A Jablonski; Sarah E Fowler; Charles A Hales; Russell D Hull; Alexander Gottschalk; David P Naidich; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Clin Appl Thromb Hemost Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 2.389
Authors: Christian Loewe; Christoph R Becker; Riccardo Berletti; Carlo Alberto Cametti; Jerome Caudron; Walter Coudyzer; Johan De Mey; Massimo Favat; Jean-François Heautot; Sam Heye; Markus Hittinger; Antoine Larralde; Jean-Pierre Lestrat; Roberto Marangoni; Koenraad Nieboer; Peter Reimer; Martin Schwarz; Melanie Schernthaner; Johannes Lammer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-09-30 Impact factor: 5.315