INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance (MR) plaque imaging for carotid arteries is usually performed by using an electrocardiograph (ECG)-gating technique to eliminate pulsation-related artifacts, which can affect the plaque signals because of varied repetition time (TR) among patients. Hence, we investigated whether differences in TR causes signal alterations of the carotid plaque by using a non-gated plaque imaging technique. METHODS: We prospectively examined 19 patients with carotid stenosis by using a T1-weighted self-navigated radial-scan technique with TRs of 500, 700, and 900 ms. The signal intensity of the carotid plaque was measured, and the contrast ratio (CR) relative to the adjacent muscle was calculated. RESULTS: CRs of the carotid plaques were 1.39 +/- 0.39, 1.29 +/- 0.29, and 1.23 +/- 0.24 with TRs of 500, 700, and 900 ms, respectively, and were significantly different. Among the plaques, those with a hyperintensity signal (CR > 1.5) and moderate-intensity signal (CR 1.2-1.5) at 500 ms showed a TR-dependent signal decrease (hyperintensity plaques, 1.82 +/- 0.26; 1.61 +/- 0.19; and 1.48 +/- 0.17; moderate-intensity plaques, 1.33 +/- 0.08; 1.26 +/- 0.08; and 1.19 +/- 0.07), while those with an isointensity signal (CR < 1.2) remained unchanged regardless of TR (0.96 +/- 0.12, 0.96 +/- 0.11, and 0.97 +/- 0.13). CONCLUSION: The signal intensity of the carotid plaque on T1-weighted imaging significantly varies among different TRs and tends to decrease with longer TR. MR plaque imaging with short and constant TR settings that the ECG-gating method cannot realize would be preferable for evaluating plaque characteristics.
INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance (MR) plaque imaging for carotid arteries is usually performed by using an electrocardiograph (ECG)-gating technique to eliminate pulsation-related artifacts, which can affect the plaque signals because of varied repetition time (TR) among patients. Hence, we investigated whether differences in TR causes signal alterations of the carotid plaque by using a non-gated plaque imaging technique. METHODS: We prospectively examined 19 patients with carotid stenosis by using a T1-weighted self-navigated radial-scan technique with TRs of 500, 700, and 900 ms. The signal intensity of the carotid plaque was measured, and the contrast ratio (CR) relative to the adjacent muscle was calculated. RESULTS:CRs of the carotid plaques were 1.39 +/- 0.39, 1.29 +/- 0.29, and 1.23 +/- 0.24 with TRs of 500, 700, and 900 ms, respectively, and were significantly different. Among the plaques, those with a hyperintensity signal (CR > 1.5) and moderate-intensity signal (CR 1.2-1.5) at 500 ms showed a TR-dependent signal decrease (hyperintensity plaques, 1.82 +/- 0.26; 1.61 +/- 0.19; and 1.48 +/- 0.17; moderate-intensity plaques, 1.33 +/- 0.08; 1.26 +/- 0.08; and 1.19 +/- 0.07), while those with an isointensity signal (CR < 1.2) remained unchanged regardless of TR (0.96 +/- 0.12, 0.96 +/- 0.11, and 0.97 +/- 0.13). CONCLUSION: The signal intensity of the carotid plaque on T1-weighted imaging significantly varies among different TRs and tends to decrease with longer TR. MR plaque imaging with short and constant TR settings that the ECG-gating method cannot realize would be preferable for evaluating plaque characteristics.
Authors: Thomas T de Weert; Mohamed Ouhlous; Pieter E Zondervan; Johanna M Hendriks; Diederik W J Dippel; Marc R H M van Sambeek; Aad van der Lugt Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-04-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: N Yamada; M Higashi; R Otsubo; T Sakuma; N Oyama; R Tanaka; K Iihara; H Naritomi; K Minematsu; H Naito Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Tobias Saam; Jianming Cai; Lin Ma; You-Quan Cai; Marina S Ferguson; Nayak L Polissar; Thomas S Hatsukami; Chun Yuan Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nishath Altaf; Paul S Morgan; Alan Moody; Shane T MacSweeney; J R Gladman; Dorothee P Auer Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: K Yoshida; O Narumi; M Chin; K Inoue; T Tabuchi; K Oda; M Nagayama; N Egawa; M Hojo; Y Goto; Y Watanabe; S Yamagata Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-02-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: H J M Barnett; D W Taylor; R B Haynes; D L Sackett; S J Peerless; G G Ferguson; A J Fox; R N Rankin; V C Hachinski; D O Wiebers; M Eliasziw Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Baocheng Chu; Annette Kampschulte; Marina S Ferguson; William S Kerwin; Vasily L Yarnykh; Kevin D O'Brien; Nayak L Polissar; Thomas S Hatsukami; Chun Yuan Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Alan R Moody; Rachael E Murphy; Paul S Morgan; Anne L Martel; G S Delay; Steve Allder; Shane T MacSweeney; William G Tennant; John Gladman; John Lowe; Beverley J Hunt Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-06-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: S Narumi; M Sasaki; T Natori; M Yamaguchi Oura; K Ogasawara; M Kobayashi; Y Sato; Y Ogasawara; J Hitomi; Y Terayama Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Narumi; M Sasaki; H Ohba; K Ogasawara; M Kobayashi; J Hitomi; K Mori; K Ohura; M Yamaguchi; K Kudo; Y Terayama Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Narumi; M Sasaki; H Ohba; K Ogasawara; M Kobayashi; T Natori; J Hitomi; H Itagaki; T Takahashi; Y Terayama Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Y Sato; K Ogasawara; S Narumi; M Sasaki; A Saito; E Tsushima; T Namba; M Kobayashi; K Yoshida; Y Terayama; A Ogawa Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 3.825