Literature DB >> 21357520

Brain MR imaging at ultra-low radiofrequency power.

Subhendra N Sarkar1, David C Alsop, Ananth J Madhuranthakam, Reed F Busse, Philip M Robson, Neil M Rofsky, David B Hackney.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To explore the lower limits for radiofrequency (RF) power-induced specific absorption rate (SAR) achievable at 1.5 T for brain magnetic resonance (MR) imaging without loss of tissue signal or contrast present in high-SAR clinical imaging in order to create a potentially viable MR method at ultra-low RF power to image tissues containing implanted devices.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant prospective MR study design was used, with written informed consent from all subjects prior to MR sessions. Seven healthy subjects were imaged prospectively at 1.5 T with ultra-low-SAR optimized three-dimensional (3D) fast spin-echo (FSE) and fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery (FLAIR) T2-weighted sequences and an ultra-low-SAR 3D spoiled gradient-recalled acquisition in the steady state T1-weighted sequence. Corresponding high-SAR two-dimensional (2D) clinical sequences were also performed. In addition to qualitative comparisons, absolute signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) for multicoil, parallel imaging acquisitions were generated by using a Monte Carlo method for quantitative comparison between ultra-low-SAR and high-SAR results.
RESULTS: There were minor to moderate differences in the absolute tissue SNR and CNR values and in qualitative appearance of brain images obtained by using ultra-low-SAR and high-SAR techniques. High-SAR 2D T2-weighted imaging produced slightly higher SNR, while ultra-low-SAR 3D technique not only produced higher SNR for T1-weighted and FLAIR images but also higher CNRs for all three sequences for most of the brain tissues.
CONCLUSION: The 3D techniques adopted here led to a decrease in the absorbed RF power by two orders of magnitude at 1.5 T, and still the image quality was preserved within clinically acceptable imaging times. RSNA, 2011

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21357520     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11092445

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  8 in total

1.  Evaluation of a Workflow to Define Low Specific Absorption Rate MRI Protocols for Patients With Active Implantable Medical Devices.

Authors:  Jessica A Martinez; Kévin Moulin; Bryan Yoo; Yu Shi; Hyun J Kim; Pablo J Villablanca; Daniel B Ennis
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Optimization of magnetization-prepared 3-dimensional fluid attenuated inversion recovery imaging for lesion detection at 7 T.

Authors:  Manojkumar Saranathan; Thomas Tourdias; Adam B Kerr; Jeff D Bernstein; Geoffrey A Kerchner; May H Han; Brian K Rutt
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 6.016

3.  MRI in patients with implanted active devices: how to combine safety and image quality using a limited transmission field?

Authors:  Laura Lunden; Stephan Wolff; Sönke Peters; Catharina Drews; Christine Gierloff; Ulf Jensen-Kondering; Patrick Langguth; Jawid Madjidyar; Tim-Christian Piesch; Olav Jansen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-01-23       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Low-power inversion recovery MRI preserves brain tissue contrast for patients with Parkinson disease with deep brain stimulators.

Authors:  S N Sarkar; E Papavassiliou; R Rojas; D L Teich; D B Hackney; R A Bhadelia; J Stormann; R L Alterman
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Whole-body MRI for metastatic cancer detection using T2 -weighted imaging with fat and fluid suppression.

Authors:  Xinzeng Wang; Ali Pirasteh; James Brugarolas; Neil M Rofsky; Robert E Lenkinski; Ivan Pedrosa; Ananth J Madhuranthakam
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 4.668

6.  MR imaging of the fetal brain at 1.5T and 3.0T field strengths: comparing specific absorption rate (SAR) and image quality.

Authors:  Uday Krishnamurthy; Jaladhar Neelavalli; Swati Mody; Lami Yeo; Pavan K Jella; Sheena Saleem; Steven J Korzeniewski; Maria D Cabrera; Shadi Ehterami; Ray O Bahado-Singh; Yashwanth Katkuri; Ewart M Haacke; Edgar Hernandez-Andrade; Sonia S Hassan; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Perinat Med       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.901

7.  Effect of low refocusing angle in T1-weighted spin echo and fast spin echo MRI on low-contrast detectability: a comparative phantom study at 1.5 and 3 Tesla.

Authors:  Subhendra N Sarkar; Jason L Mangosing; Pooja R Sarkar
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Utilizing fast spin echo MRI to reduce image artifacts and improve implant/tissue interface detection in refractory Parkinson's patients with deep brain stimulators.

Authors:  Subhendra N Sarkar; Pooja R Sarkar; Efstathios Papavassiliou; Rafael R Rojas
Journal:  Parkinsons Dis       Date:  2014-02-25
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.