PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of field strength on flow-sensitive 4D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the thoracic aorta. A volunteer study at 1.5 T and 3 T was conducted to compare phase-contrast MR angiography (MRA) and 3D flow visualization quality as well as quantification of aortic hemodynamics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were examined by flow-sensitive 4D MRI at both 1.5 T and 3 T MRI with identical imaging parameters (TE/TR = 6/5.1 msec, spatial/temporal resolution ≈2 mm/40.8 msec). Analysis included assessment of image quality of derived aortic 3D phase contrast (PC) angiography and 3D flow visualization (semiquantitative grading on a 0-2 scale, two blinded observers) and quantification of blood flow velocities, net flow per cardiac cycle, wall shear stress (WSS), and velocity noise. RESULTS: Quality of 3D blood flow visualization (average grading = 1.8 ± 0.4 at 3 T vs. 1.1 ± 0.7 at 1.5 T) and the depiction of aortic lumen geometry by 3D PC-MRA (1.7 ± 0.5 vs. 1.2 ± 0.6) were significantly (P < 0.01) improved at 3 T while velocity noise was significantly higher (P < 0.01) at 1.5 T. Velocity quantification resulted in minimally altered (0.05 m/s, 3 mL/cycle and 0.01 N/m(2)) but not statistically different (P = 0.40, P = 0.39, and P = 0.82) systolic peak velocities, net flow, and WSS for 1.5 T compared to 3 T. CONCLUSION: Flow-sensitive 4D MRI at 3 T provided improved image quality without additional artifacts related to higher fields. Imaging at 1.5 T MRI, which is more widely available, was also feasible and provided information on aortic 3D hemodynamics of moderate quality with identical performance regarding quantitative analysis.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of field strength on flow-sensitive 4D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the thoracic aorta. A volunteer study at 1.5 T and 3 T was conducted to compare phase-contrast MR angiography (MRA) and 3D flow visualization quality as well as quantification of aortic hemodynamics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were examined by flow-sensitive 4D MRI at both 1.5 T and 3 T MRI with identical imaging parameters (TE/TR = 6/5.1 msec, spatial/temporal resolution ≈2 mm/40.8 msec). Analysis included assessment of image quality of derived aortic 3D phase contrast (PC) angiography and 3D flow visualization (semiquantitative grading on a 0-2 scale, two blinded observers) and quantification of blood flow velocities, net flow per cardiac cycle, wall shear stress (WSS), and velocity noise. RESULTS: Quality of 3D blood flow visualization (average grading = 1.8 ± 0.4 at 3 T vs. 1.1 ± 0.7 at 1.5 T) and the depiction of aortic lumen geometry by 3D PC-MRA (1.7 ± 0.5 vs. 1.2 ± 0.6) were significantly (P < 0.01) improved at 3 T while velocity noise was significantly higher (P < 0.01) at 1.5 T. Velocity quantification resulted in minimally altered (0.05 m/s, 3 mL/cycle and 0.01 N/m(2)) but not statistically different (P = 0.40, P = 0.39, and P = 0.82) systolic peak velocities, net flow, and WSS for 1.5 T compared to 3 T. CONCLUSION: Flow-sensitive 4D MRI at 3 T provided improved image quality without additional artifacts related to higher fields. Imaging at 1.5 T MRI, which is more widely available, was also feasible and provided information on aortic 3D hemodynamics of moderate quality with identical performance regarding quantitative analysis.
Authors: Julio Garcia; Alex J Barker; Ian Murphy; Kelly Jarvis; Susanne Schnell; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr; S Chris Malaisrie; Michael Markl Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Zoran Stankovic; Bernd Jung; Jeremy Collins; Maximilian F Russe; James Carr; Wulf Euringer; Lena Stehlin; Zoltan Csatari; Peter C Strohm; Mathias Langer; Michael Markl Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Pim van Ooij; Julio Garcia; Wouter V Potters; S Chris Malaisrie; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Pim van Ooij; Wouter V Potters; Jeremy Collins; Maria Carr; James Carr; S Chris Malaisrie; Paul W M Fedak; Patrick M McCarthy; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff; Ralf F Trauzeddel; Alex J Barker; Henriette Gruettner; Michael Markl; Jeanette Schulz-Menger Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Julio Garcia; Roel L F van der Palen; Emilie Bollache; Kelly Jarvis; Michael J Rose; Alex J Barker; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr; Joshua Robinson; Cynthia K Rigsby; Michael Markl Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Eric K Shang; Derek P Nathan; Shanna R Sprinkle; Sarah C Vigmostad; Ronald M Fairman; Joseph E Bavaria; Robert C Gorman; Joseph H Gorman; Krishnan B Chandran; Benjamin M Jackson Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-12-13 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Emanuela Branchetti; Paolo Poggio; Rachana Sainger; Eric Shang; Juan B Grau; Benjamin M Jackson; Eric K Lai; Michael S Parmacek; Robert C Gorman; Joseph H Gorman; Joseph E Bavaria; Giovanni Ferrari Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 10.787