PURPOSE: To develop an improved chemical shift-based water-fat separation sequence using a water-selective inversion pulse for inversion recovery 3D contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In inversion recovery sequences the fat signal is substantially reduced due to the application of a nonselective inversion pulse. Therefore, for simultaneous visualization of water, fat, and myocardial enhancement in inversion recovery-based sequences such as late gadolinium enhancement imaging, two separate scans are used. To overcome this, the nonselective inversion pulse is replaced with a water-selective inversion pulse. Imaging was performed in phantoms, nine healthy subjects, and nine patients with suspected arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy plus one patient for tumor/mass imaging. In patients, images with conventional turbo-spin echo (TSE) with and without fat saturation were acquired prior to contrast injection for fat assessment. Subjective image scores (1 = poor, 4 = excellent) were used for image assessment. RESULTS: Phantom experiments showed a fat signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) increase between 1.7 to 5.9 times for inversion times of 150 and 300 msec, respectively. The water-selective inversion pulse retains the fat signal in contrast-enhanced cardiac MR, allowing improved visualization of fat in the water-fat separated images of healthy subjects with a score of 3.7 ± 0.6. Patient images acquired with the proposed sequence were scored higher when compared with a TSE sequence (3.5 ± 0.7 vs. 2.2 ± 0.5, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The water-selective inversion pulse retains the fat signal in inversion recovery-based contrast-enhanced cardiac MR, allowing simultaneous visualization of water and fat.
PURPOSE: To develop an improved chemical shift-based water-fat separation sequence using a water-selective inversion pulse for inversion recovery 3D contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In inversion recovery sequences the fat signal is substantially reduced due to the application of a nonselective inversion pulse. Therefore, for simultaneous visualization of water, fat, and myocardial enhancement in inversion recovery-based sequences such as late gadolinium enhancement imaging, two separate scans are used. To overcome this, the nonselective inversion pulse is replaced with a water-selective inversion pulse. Imaging was performed in phantoms, nine healthy subjects, and nine patients with suspected arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy plus one patient for tumor/mass imaging. In patients, images with conventional turbo-spin echo (TSE) with and without fat saturation were acquired prior to contrast injection for fat assessment. Subjective image scores (1 = poor, 4 = excellent) were used for image assessment. RESULTS: Phantom experiments showed a fat signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) increase between 1.7 to 5.9 times for inversion times of 150 and 300 msec, respectively. The water-selective inversion pulse retains the fat signal in contrast-enhanced cardiac MR, allowing improved visualization of fat in the water-fat separated images of healthy subjects with a score of 3.7 ± 0.6. Patient images acquired with the proposed sequence were scored higher when compared with a TSE sequence (3.5 ± 0.7 vs. 2.2 ± 0.5, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The water-selective inversion pulse retains the fat signal in inversion recovery-based contrast-enhanced cardiac MR, allowing simultaneous visualization of water and fat.
Authors: Matthew R Nelson; Farouk Mookadam; Venkata Thota; Usha Emani; Mohsen Al Harthi; Steven J Lester; Stephen Cha; Jan Stepanek; R Todd Hurst Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Scott B Reeder; Angel R Pineda; Zhifei Wen; Ann Shimakawa; Huanzhou Yu; Jean H Brittain; Garry E Gold; Christopher H Beaulieu; Norbert J Pelc Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: O P Simonetti; R J Kim; D S Fieno; H B Hillenbrand; E Wu; J M Bundy; J P Finn; R M Judd Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R J Kim; D S Fieno; T B Parrish; K Harris; E L Chen; O Simonetti; J Bundy; J P Finn; F J Klocke; R M Judd Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-11-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Peng Hu; Jonathan Chan; Long H Ngo; Jouke Smink; Beth Goddu; Kraig V Kissinger; Lois Goepfert; Thomas H Hauser; Neil M Rofsky; Warren J Manning; Reza Nezafat Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Cuilian Miao; Shaoguang Chen; Jingzhong Ding; Kiang Liu; Debiao Li; Robson Macedo; Shenghan Lai; Jens Vogel-Claussen; Elizabeth R Brown; João A C Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-08-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martin Georg Zeilinger; Marco Wiesmüller; Christoph Forman; Michaela Schmidt; Camila Munoz; Davide Piccini; Karl-Philipp Kunze; Radhouene Neji; René Michael Botnar; Claudia Prieto; Michael Uder; Matthias May; Wolfgang Wuest Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 5.315