OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare whole-heart acquisition with targeted-volume acquisition in 3-T navigator coronary MR angiography with parallel imaging. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The right and left coronary arteries of 20 subjects were imaged with axial whole-heart acquisition and two oblique targeted-volume acquisitions. RESULTS: Both whole-heart and targeted-volume acquisitions were completed with similar navigator efficiencies ( approximately 50%) and depicted similar coronary artery diameters ( approximately 3 mm) (p >or= 0.06). The lengths of the coronary arteries were not significantly different (p = 0.07-0.45) for the whole-heart and targeted-volume approaches. Depiction of the sharper coronary arteries (p <or= 0.04) and overall image quality (p < 0.02) were better with the targeted-volume approach. CONCLUSION: For current 3-T navigator parallel-imaging coronary MR angiography, targeted-volume acquisition yields sharper coronary images than does whole-heart acquisition.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare whole-heart acquisition with targeted-volume acquisition in 3-T navigator coronary MR angiography with parallel imaging. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The right and left coronary arteries of 20 subjects were imaged with axial whole-heart acquisition and two oblique targeted-volume acquisitions. RESULTS: Both whole-heart and targeted-volume acquisitions were completed with similar navigator efficiencies ( approximately 50%) and depicted similar coronary artery diameters ( approximately 3 mm) (p >or= 0.06). The lengths of the coronary arteries were not significantly different (p = 0.07-0.45) for the whole-heart and targeted-volume approaches. Depiction of the sharper coronary arteries (p <or= 0.04) and overall image quality (p < 0.02) were better with the targeted-volume approach. CONCLUSION: For current 3-T navigator parallel-imaging coronary MR angiography, targeted-volume acquisition yields sharper coronary images than does whole-heart acquisition.
Authors: Michael E Huber; Sebastian Kozerke; Klaas P Pruessmann; Jouke Smink; Peter Boesiger Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: W Y Kim; P G Danias; M Stuber; S D Flamm; S Plein; E Nagel; S E Langerak; O M Weber; E M Pedersen; M Schmidt; R M Botnar; W J Manning Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-12-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M J Budoff; D Georgiou; A Brody; A S Agatston; J Kennedy; C Wolfkiel; W Stanford; P Shields; R J Lewis; W R Janowitz; S Rich; B H Brundage Journal: Circulation Date: 1996-03-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Matthias Stuber; René M Botnar; Stefan E Fischer; Rolf Lamerichs; Jouke Smink; Paul Harvey; Warren J Manning Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Wael G Ibrahim; Riham H El Khouli; Khaled Z Abd-Elmoniem; Jatin Raj Matta; Dorothea McAreavey; Ahmed M Gharib Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Jing Liu; Thanh D Nguyen; Yanchun Zhu; Pascal Spincemaille; Martin R Prince; Jonathan W Weinsaft; David Saloner; Yi Wang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 3.240