PURPOSE: To prospectively compare vessel conspicuity and diagnostic image quality between three-dimensional intracranial contrast-enhanced MR venography acquired at 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3.0T, with 6.4-fold sensitivity encoding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were imaged on 1.5T and 3.0T MR scanners using eight-element head coil arrays. The intracranial venous vasculature was divided into five groups for evaluation based on vessel size and anatomical location. Two radiologists independently assessed vessel conspicuity, level of artifacts, and diagnostic image quality. Informed consent was obtained, and the study was approved by the institutional review board. RESULTS: With the exception of large cerebral sinuses where 1.5T and 3.0T results were rated as equivalent, 3.0T images demonstrated superior vessel continuity, sharpness, and signal contrast to background tissue than 1.5T for all other intracranial venous vasculature (P < 0.01). No statistical significance in overall image quality was found between 1.5T and 3.0T venograms, and all data sets were deemed sufficient for diagnostic interpretation. CONCLUSION: Whole brain contrast-enhanced venography with 6.4-fold sensitivity encoding is robust and has the potential to become the method of choice for fast visualization of the intracranial venous vasculature. At 3.0T, demonstration of small cerebral vessels is superior to 1.5T.
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare vessel conspicuity and diagnostic image quality between three-dimensional intracranial contrast-enhanced MR venography acquired at 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3.0T, with 6.4-fold sensitivity encoding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were imaged on 1.5T and 3.0T MR scanners using eight-element head coil arrays. The intracranial venous vasculature was divided into five groups for evaluation based on vessel size and anatomical location. Two radiologists independently assessed vessel conspicuity, level of artifacts, and diagnostic image quality. Informed consent was obtained, and the study was approved by the institutional review board. RESULTS: With the exception of large cerebral sinuses where 1.5T and 3.0T results were rated as equivalent, 3.0T images demonstrated superior vessel continuity, sharpness, and signal contrast to background tissue than 1.5T for all other intracranial venous vasculature (P < 0.01). No statistical significance in overall image quality was found between 1.5T and 3.0T venograms, and all data sets were deemed sufficient for diagnostic interpretation. CONCLUSION: Whole brain contrast-enhanced venography with 6.4-fold sensitivity encoding is robust and has the potential to become the method of choice for fast visualization of the intracranial venous vasculature. At 3.0T, demonstration of small cerebral vessels is superior to 1.5T.
Authors: Richard I Farb; James N Scott; Robert A Willinsky; Walter J Montanera; Graham A Wright; Karel G terBrugge Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R R Edelman; K U Wentz; H P Mattle; G V O'Reilly; G Candia; C Liu; B Zhao; R N Kjellberg; K R Davis Journal: Radiology Date: 1989-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stephen J Riederer; Houchun Harry Hu; David G Kruger; Clifton R Haider; Norbert G Campeau; John Huston Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: H P Mattle; K U Wentz; R R Edelman; B Wallner; J P Finn; P Barnes; D J Atkinson; J Kleefield; H M Hoogewoud Journal: Radiology Date: 1991-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Joanna M Wardlaw; Will Brindle; Ana M Casado; Kirsten Shuler; Moira Henderson; Brenda Thomas; Jennifer Macfarlane; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Katherine Lymer; Zoe Morris; Cyril Pernet; William Nailon; Trevor Ahearn; Abdul Nashirudeen Mumuni; Carlos Mugruza; John McLean; Goultchira Chakirova; Yuehui Terry Tao; Johanna Simpson; Andrew C Stanfield; Harriet Johnston; Jehill Parikh; Natalie A Royle; Janet De Wilde; Mark E Bastin; Nick Weir; Andrew Farrall; Maria C Valdes Hernandez Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Clifton R Haider; Houchun Harry Hu; Norbert G Campeau; John Huston; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.668