OBJECTIVE: In a recent multi-center trial of gadolinium contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (Gd-MRA) for diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), two centers utilized a common MRI platform though at different field strengths (1.5T and 3T) and realized a signal-to-noise gain with the 3T platform. This retrospective analysis investigates this gain in signal-to-noise of pulmonary vascular targets. METHODS: Thirty consecutive pulmonary MRA examinations acquired on a 1.5T system at one institution were compared to 30 consecutive pulmonary MRA examinations acquired on a 3T system at a different institution. Both systems were from the same MRI manufacturer and both used the same Gd-MRA pulse sequence, although there were some protocol adjustments made due to field strength differences. Region-of-interests were manually defined on the main pulmonary artery, 4 pulmonary veins, thoracic aorta, and background lung for objective measurement of signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise, and bolus timing bias between centers. RESULTS: The 3T pulmonary MRA protocol achieved higher spatial resolution yet maintained significantly higher signal-to-noise ratio (≥13%, p = 0.03) in the main pulmonary vessels relative to 1.5T. There was no evidence of operator bias in bolus timing or patient hemodynamic differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Relative to 1.5T, higher spatial resolution Gd-MRA can be achieved at 3T with a sustained or greater signal-to-noise ratio of enhanced vasculature.
OBJECTIVE: In a recent multi-center trial of gadolinium contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (Gd-MRA) for diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), two centers utilized a common MRI platform though at different field strengths (1.5T and 3T) and realized a signal-to-noise gain with the 3T platform. This retrospective analysis investigates this gain in signal-to-noise of pulmonary vascular targets. METHODS: Thirty consecutive pulmonary MRA examinations acquired on a 1.5T system at one institution were compared to 30 consecutive pulmonary MRA examinations acquired on a 3T system at a different institution. Both systems were from the same MRI manufacturer and both used the same Gd-MRA pulse sequence, although there were some protocol adjustments made due to field strength differences. Region-of-interests were manually defined on the main pulmonary artery, 4 pulmonary veins, thoracic aorta, and background lung for objective measurement of signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise, and bolus timing bias between centers. RESULTS: The 3T pulmonary MRA protocol achieved higher spatial resolution yet maintained significantly higher signal-to-noise ratio (≥13%, p = 0.03) in the main pulmonary vessels relative to 1.5T. There was no evidence of operator bias in bolus timing or patient hemodynamic differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Relative to 1.5T, higher spatial resolution Gd-MRA can be achieved at 3T with a sustained or greater signal-to-noise ratio of enhanced vasculature.
Authors: K Wolff; C J Bergin; M A King; E Ghadishah; D W Sung; P Clopton; J J Bookstein; W R Auger; K M Moser Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 1996-01 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: T M Grist; H D Sostman; J R MacFall; T K Foo; C E Spritzer; L Witty; G E Newman; J F Debatin; V Tapson; H A Saltzman Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H Isoda; T Ushimi; T Masui; T Mochizuki; S Goto; K Suzuki; T Shirakawa; A Ohta; M Takahashi; M Kaneko Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1995 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: W B Gefter; H Hatabu; B J Dinsmore; L Axel; H I Palevsky; N Reichek; M L Schiebler; H Y Kressel Journal: Radiology Date: 1990-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C J Bergin; C B Sirlin; J P Hauschildt; T V Huynh; W R Auger; P F Fedullo; D P Kapelanski Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: W A Erdman; R M Peshock; H C Redman; F Bonte; M Meyerson; H T Jayson; G L Miller; G D Clarke; R W Parkey Journal: Radiology Date: 1994-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M L Schiebler; G A Holland; H Hatabu; J Listerud; T Foo; H Palevsky; H Edmunds; W B Gefter Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Donald G Benson; Mark L Schiebler; Michael D Repplinger; Christopher J François; Thomas M Grist; Scott B Reeder; Scott K Nagle Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Huyen T Nguyen; Kamal S Pohar; Guang Jia; Zarine K Shah; Amir Mortazavi; Debra L Zynger; Lai Wei; Daniel Clark; Xiangyu Yang; Michael V Knopp Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Peter Bannas; Mark L Schiebler; Utaroh Motosugi; Christopher J François; Scott B Reeder; Scott K Nagle Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Huyen T Nguyen; Guang Jia; Zarine K Shah; Kamal Pohar; Amir Mortazavi; Debra L Zynger; Lai Wei; Xiangyu Yang; Daniel Clark; Michael V Knopp Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 4.813