OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced (CE) whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) at 3.0 T using gadofosveset to noncontrast-enhanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) coronary MRA at 1.5 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized study was conducted among 20 healthy male volunteers. The same group of subjects underwent CE whole heart MRA at 3.0 T employing a 3D FLASH sequence with IR prepulse after gadofosveset injection as well as noncontrast-enhanced coronary MRA at 1.5 T using a 3D SSFP sequence with T2-preparation. Both techniques were performed using prospective ECG-triggering and adaptive respiratory gating. Acquisition time, signal-to-noise ratio of coronary blood, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between coronaries and adjacent myocardium or epicardial fat, and image quality were evaluated in each case. RESULTS: A significant increase of the overall CNR between coronary blood and adjacent myocardium was measured on images acquired at 3 T in comparison to 1.5 T. The mean values were 38.9 +/- 19.6 and 26.3 +/- 15.4, respectively (P[r] < 0.005). There was no significant difference in CNR between coronary blood and epicardial fat. The mean image quality for the proximal and mid coronary segments was not statistically different between 1.5 T and 3.0 T (P > 0.05), however, the distal coronary segments were rated significantly higher for the CE MRA at 3.0 T (P = 0.02). The average acquisition time (15.29 +/- 5.73 minutes at 1.5 T vs. 17.29 +/- 5.18 minutes at 3 T) and overall image quality (2.15 +/- 0.49 at 1.5 T vs. 2.35 +/- 0.39 at 3 T) were similar for both methods. CONCLUSIONS: CE whole-heart coronary MRA at 3.0 T demonstrated higher overall CNR between coronary blood and myocardium and an improved image quality of the distal coronary segments compared with noncontrast-enhanced SSFP coronary MRA at 1.5 T.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced (CE) whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) at 3.0 T using gadofosveset to noncontrast-enhanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) coronary MRA at 1.5 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized study was conducted among 20 healthy male volunteers. The same group of subjects underwent CE whole heart MRA at 3.0 T employing a 3D FLASH sequence with IR prepulse after gadofosveset injection as well as noncontrast-enhanced coronary MRA at 1.5 T using a 3D SSFP sequence with T2-preparation. Both techniques were performed using prospective ECG-triggering and adaptive respiratory gating. Acquisition time, signal-to-noise ratio of coronary blood, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between coronaries and adjacent myocardium or epicardial fat, and image quality were evaluated in each case. RESULTS: A significant increase of the overall CNR between coronary blood and adjacent myocardium was measured on images acquired at 3 T in comparison to 1.5 T. The mean values were 38.9 +/- 19.6 and 26.3 +/- 15.4, respectively (P[r] < 0.005). There was no significant difference in CNR between coronary blood and epicardial fat. The mean image quality for the proximal and mid coronary segments was not statistically different between 1.5 T and 3.0 T (P > 0.05), however, the distal coronary segments were rated significantly higher for the CE MRA at 3.0 T (P = 0.02). The average acquisition time (15.29 +/- 5.73 minutes at 1.5 T vs. 17.29 +/- 5.18 minutes at 3 T) and overall image quality (2.15 +/- 0.49 at 1.5 T vs. 2.35 +/- 0.39 at 3 T) were similar for both methods. CONCLUSIONS: CE whole-heart coronary MRA at 3.0 T demonstrated higher overall CNR between coronary blood and myocardium and an improved image quality of the distal coronary segments compared with noncontrast-enhanced SSFP coronary MRA at 1.5 T.
Authors: Sebastian Niedermayer; Steven Sourbron; Maria Prompona; Clemens Cyran; Maximilian Reiser; Armin Huber Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Mehmet Akçakaya; Tamer A Basha; Raymond H Chan; Hussein Rayatzadeh; Kraig V Kissinger; Beth Goddu; Lois A Goepfert; Warren J Manning; Reza Nezafat Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Michael D Hope; Thomas A Hope; Chengcheng Zhu; Farshid Faraji; Henrik Haraldsson; Karen G Ordovas; David Saloner Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Peng Hu; Jonathan Chan; Long H Ngo; Jouke Smink; Beth Goddu; Kraig V Kissinger; Lois Goepfert; Thomas H Hauser; Neil M Rofsky; Warren J Manning; Reza Nezafat Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ahmed M Gharib; Khaled Z Abd-Elmoniem; Vincent B Ho; Eszter Födi; Daniel A Herzka; Jacques Ohayon; Matthias Stuber; Roderic I Pettigrew Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 6.016