PURPOSE: In 2D SENSE-accelerated 3D Cartesian acquisition, the net acceleration factor R is the product of the two individual accelerations, R = RY × RZ. Acceleration Apportionment tailors acceleration parameters (RY, RZ) to improve parallel imaging performance on a patient- and coil-specific basis and is demonstrated in contrast-enhanced MR angiography. METHODS: A performance metric is defined based on coil sensitivity information which identifies the (RY, RZ) pair that optimally trades off image quality with scan time reduction on a patient-specific basis. Acceleration Apportionment is evaluated using retrospective analysis of contrast-enhanced MR angiography studies, and prospective studies in which optimally apportioned parameters are compared with standard acceleration parameters. RESULTS: The retrospective studies show strong variability in optimal acceleration parameters between anatomic regions and between patients. Prospective application of apportionment to foot contrast-enhanced MR angiography with an 8-channel receiver array provides a 20% increase in net acceleration with improved contrast-to-noise ratio. Application to 16-channel contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the feet and calves suggests 10% acceleration increase to R > 13 and no contrast-to-noise ratio loss. The specific implementation allows the optimum (RY, RZ) pair to be determined within one minute. CONCLUSION: Optimum 2D SENSE acceleration parameters can be automatically chosen on a per-exam basis to allow improved performance without disrupting the clinical workflow.
PURPOSE: In 2D SENSE-accelerated 3D Cartesian acquisition, the net acceleration factor R is the product of the two individual accelerations, R = RY × RZ. Acceleration Apportionment tailors acceleration parameters (RY, RZ) to improve parallel imaging performance on a patient- and coil-specific basis and is demonstrated in contrast-enhanced MR angiography. METHODS: A performance metric is defined based on coil sensitivity information which identifies the (RY, RZ) pair that optimally trades off image quality with scan time reduction on a patient-specific basis. Acceleration Apportionment is evaluated using retrospective analysis of contrast-enhanced MR angiography studies, and prospective studies in which optimally apportioned parameters are compared with standard acceleration parameters. RESULTS: The retrospective studies show strong variability in optimal acceleration parameters between anatomic regions and between patients. Prospective application of apportionment to foot contrast-enhanced MR angiography with an 8-channel receiver array provides a 20% increase in net acceleration with improved contrast-to-noise ratio. Application to 16-channel contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the feet and calves suggests 10% acceleration increase to R > 13 and no contrast-to-noise ratio loss. The specific implementation allows the optimum (RY, RZ) pair to be determined within one minute. CONCLUSION: Optimum 2D SENSE acceleration parameters can be automatically chosen on a per-exam basis to allow improved performance without disrupting the clinical workflow.
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: Houchun H Hu; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; David G Kruger; John Huston; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Felix A Breuer; Martin Blaimer; Robin M Heidemann; Matthias F Mueller; Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Houchun H Hu; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; David G Kruger; James F Glockner; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Felix A Breuer; Martin Blaimer; Matthias F Mueller; Nicole Seiberlich; Robin M Heidemann; Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Dariusch R Hadizadeh; Marcus von Falkenhausen; Jürgen Gieseke; Bernhard Meyer; Horst Urbach; Romhild Hoogeveen; Hans H Schild; Winfried A Willinek Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-10-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stephan Meckel; Ralf Mekle; Christian Taschner; Sven Haller; Klaus Scheffler; Ernst-Wilhelm Radue; Stephan G Wetzel Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2006-03-11 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Stephen J Riederer; Clifton R Haider; Eric A Borisch; Paul T Weavers; Phillip M Young Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Casey P Johnson; Paul T Weavers; Eric A Borisch; Roger C Grimm; Thomas C Hulshizer; Christine C LaPlante; Phillip J Rossman; James F Glockner; Phillip M Young; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Eric G Stinson; Joshua D Trzasko; Norbert G Campeau; James F Glockner; John Huston; Phillip M Young; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Paul T Weavers; Eric A Borisch; Tom C Hulshizer; Phillip J Rossman; Phillip M Young; Casey P Johnson; Jessica McKay; Christopher C Cline; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-10-31 Impact factor: 2.546