PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of performing single breathhold three-dimensional (3D) thoracic noncontrast MR angiography (NC-MRA) using highly accelerated parallel imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a single breathhold NC MRA pulse sequence using balanced steady state free precession (SSFP) readout and highly accelerated parallel imaging. In 17 subjects, highly accelerated noncontrast MRA was compared against electrocardiogram-triggered contrast-enhanced MRA. Anonymized images were randomized for blinded review by two independent readers for image quality, artifact severity in eight defined vessel segments and aortic dimensions in six standard sites. NC-MRA and CE-MRA were compared in terms of these measures using paired sample t- and Wilcoxon tests. RESULTS: The overall image quality (3.21 ± 0.68 for NC-MRA versus 3.12 ± 0.71 for CE-MRA) and artifact (2.87 ± 1.01 for NC-MRA versus 2.92 ± 0.87 for CE-MRA) scores were not significantly different, but there were significant differences for the great vessel and coronary artery origins. NC-MRA demonstrated significantly lower aortic diameter measurements compared with CE-MRA; however, this difference was not considered clinically relevant (>3 mm difference) for less than 12% of segments, most commonly at the sinotubular junction. Mean total scan time was significantly lower for NC-MRA compared with CE-MRA (18.2 ± 6.0 s versus 28.1 ± 5.4 s, respectively; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Single breathhold NC-MRA is feasible and can be a useful alternative for evaluation and follow-up of thoracic aortic diseases.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of performing single breathhold three-dimensional (3D) thoracic noncontrast MR angiography (NC-MRA) using highly accelerated parallel imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a single breathhold NC MRA pulse sequence using balanced steady state free precession (SSFP) readout and highly accelerated parallel imaging. In 17 subjects, highly accelerated noncontrast MRA was compared against electrocardiogram-triggered contrast-enhanced MRA. Anonymized images were randomized for blinded review by two independent readers for image quality, artifact severity in eight defined vessel segments and aortic dimensions in six standard sites. NC-MRA and CE-MRA were compared in terms of these measures using paired sample t- and Wilcoxon tests. RESULTS: The overall image quality (3.21 ± 0.68 for NC-MRA versus 3.12 ± 0.71 for CE-MRA) and artifact (2.87 ± 1.01 for NC-MRA versus 2.92 ± 0.87 for CE-MRA) scores were not significantly different, but there were significant differences for the great vessel and coronary artery origins. NC-MRA demonstrated significantly lower aortic diameter measurements compared with CE-MRA; however, this difference was not considered clinically relevant (>3 mm difference) for less than 12% of segments, most commonly at the sinotubular junction. Mean total scan time was significantly lower for NC-MRA compared with CE-MRA (18.2 ± 6.0 s versus 28.1 ± 5.4 s, respectively; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Single breathhold NC-MRA is feasible and can be a useful alternative for evaluation and follow-up of thoracic aortic diseases.
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Yudong Zhu; Christopher J Hardy; Daniel K Sodickson; Randy O Giaquinto; Charles L Dumoulin; Gontran Kenwood; Thoralf Niendorf; Hubert Lejay; Charles A McKenzie; Michael A Ohliger; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: M R Prince; D L Narasimham; W T Jacoby; D M Williams; K J Cho; M V Marx; G M Deeb Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jian Xu; Daniel Kim; Ricardo Otazo; Monvadi B Srichai; Ruth P Lim; Leon Axel; Kelly Anne Mcgorty; Thoralf Niendorf; Daniel K Sodickson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: G J H Snel; L M Hernandez; R H J A Slart; C T Nguyen; D E Sosnovik; V M van Deursen; R A J O Dierckx; B K Velthuis; R J H Borra; N H J Prakken Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-06-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Pierluigi Ciet; Harm A W M Tiddens; Piotr A Wielopolski; Jim M Wild; Edward Y Lee; Giovanni Morana; Maarten H Lequin Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2015-09-05
Authors: Lenhard Pennig; Anton Wagner; Kilian Weiss; Simon Lennartz; Michael Huntgeburth; Tilman Hickethier; David Maintz; Claas Philip Naehle; Alexander Christian Bunck; Jonas Doerner Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-08-27 Impact factor: 2.357