AIM: To compare visualization using whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA) acquired during a single breath-hold (BH) with that using conventional respiratory-gated (RG) CMRA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CMRAs of 14 healthy subjects under either BH or RG conditions were studied using a 1.5 T system equipped with a whole-body phased-array coil and 16-channel receivers. The BH examination was accelerated using parallel imaging (PI) by factors of 2.5 and 2 in the phase and section directions, respectively. For the RG examination, a PI factor of 2 was used only in the phase direction. The visualization quality of 15 coronary segments using each condition was evaluated with a five-point scale (0-4). Differences between two conditions were compared at segments with an average score greater than 2 in RG-CMRA. RESULTS: The average examination time for BH and RG acquisition scans was 34 s and 11 min 31 s, respectively. Ten segments (segments 1-3, 5-9, 11, and 13) had average scores higher than 2 in RG-CMRA. Of these, BH-CMRA had significantly lower scores than RG-CMRA at six segments (segments 1, 5-8, and 11) after correction for multiple comparisons (p<0.005). However, in BH-CMRA, proximal segments (segments 1-2, 5-7, and 11) showed average scores over 2, indicating marginally acceptable image quality. CONCLUSION: Compared with the relatively limited degree of image degradation with RG-CMRA, the present data suggest that BH-CMRA would be useful for screening and as an adjunct to RG-CMRA that is occasionally incomplete.
AIM: To compare visualization using whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA) acquired during a single breath-hold (BH) with that using conventional respiratory-gated (RG) CMRA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CMRAs of 14 healthy subjects under either BH or RG conditions were studied using a 1.5 T system equipped with a whole-body phased-array coil and 16-channel receivers. The BH examination was accelerated using parallel imaging (PI) by factors of 2.5 and 2 in the phase and section directions, respectively. For the RG examination, a PI factor of 2 was used only in the phase direction. The visualization quality of 15 coronary segments using each condition was evaluated with a five-point scale (0-4). Differences between two conditions were compared at segments with an average score greater than 2 in RG-CMRA. RESULTS: The average examination time for BH and RG acquisition scans was 34 s and 11 min 31 s, respectively. Ten segments (segments 1-3, 5-9, 11, and 13) had average scores higher than 2 in RG-CMRA. Of these, BH-CMRA had significantly lower scores than RG-CMRA at six segments (segments 1, 5-8, and 11) after correction for multiple comparisons (p<0.005). However, in BH-CMRA, proximal segments (segments 1-2, 5-7, and 11) showed average scores over 2, indicating marginally acceptable image quality. CONCLUSION: Compared with the relatively limited degree of image degradation with RG-CMRA, the present data suggest that BH-CMRA would be useful for screening and as an adjunct to RG-CMRA that is occasionally incomplete.
Authors: Daming Shen; Robert R Edelman; Joshua D Robinson; Hassan Haji-Valizadeh; Marci Messina; Shivraman Giri; Ioannis Koktzoglou; Cynthia K Rigsby; Daniel Kim Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2018 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 1.826