PURPOSE: To develop and validate a method for choosing the optimal two-dimensional CAIPIRINHA kernel for subtraction contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) and estimate the degree of image quality improvement versus that of some reference acceleration parameter set at R ≥ 8. METHODS: A metric based on patient-specific coil calibration information was defined for evaluating optimality of CAIPIRINHA kernels as applied to subtraction CE-MRA. Evaluation in retrospective studies using archived coil calibration data from abdomen, calf, foot, and hand CE-MRA exams was accomplished with an evaluation metric comparing the geometry factor (g-factor) histograms. Prospective calf, foot, and hand CE-MRA studies were evaluated with vessel signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). RESULTS: Retrospective studies show g-factor improvement for the selected CAIPIRINHA kernels was significant in the feet, moderate in the abdomen, and modest in the calves and hands. Prospective CE-MRA studies using optimal CAIPIRINHA show reduced noise amplification with identical acquisition time in studies of the feet, with minor improvements in the hands and calves. CONCLUSION: A method for selection of the optimal CAIPIRINHA kernel for high (R ≥ 8) acceleration CE-MRA exams given a specific patient and receiver array was demonstrated. CAIPIRINHA optimization appears valuable in accelerated CE-MRA of the feet and to a lesser extent in the abdomen.
PURPOSE: To develop and validate a method for choosing the optimal two-dimensional CAIPIRINHA kernel for subtraction contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) and estimate the degree of image quality improvement versus that of some reference acceleration parameter set at R ≥ 8. METHODS: A metric based on patient-specific coil calibration information was defined for evaluating optimality of CAIPIRINHA kernels as applied to subtraction CE-MRA. Evaluation in retrospective studies using archived coil calibration data from abdomen, calf, foot, and hand CE-MRA exams was accomplished with an evaluation metric comparing the geometry factor (g-factor) histograms. Prospective calf, foot, and hand CE-MRA studies were evaluated with vessel signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). RESULTS: Retrospective studies show g-factor improvement for the selected CAIPIRINHA kernels was significant in the feet, moderate in the abdomen, and modest in the calves and hands. Prospective CE-MRA studies using optimal CAIPIRINHA show reduced noise amplification with identical acquisition time in studies of the feet, with minor improvements in the hands and calves. CONCLUSION: A method for selection of the optimal CAIPIRINHA kernel for high (R ≥ 8) acceleration CE-MRA exams given a specific patient and receiver array was demonstrated. CAIPIRINHA optimization appears valuable in accelerated CE-MRA of the feet and to a lesser extent in the abdomen.
Authors: Katherine L Wright; Michael W Harrell; John A Jesberger; Luis Landeras; Dean A Nakamoto; Smitha Thomas; Dominik Nickel; Randall Kroeker; Mark A Griswold; Vikas Gulani Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Clifton R Haider; Stephen J Riederer; Eric A Borisch; James F Glockner; Roger C Grimm; Thomas C Hulshizer; Thanila A Macedo; Petrice M Mostardi; Phillip J Rossman; Terri J Vrtiska; Phillip M Young Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Henrik J Michaely; John N Morelli; Johannes Budjan; Philipp Riffel; Dominik Nickel; Randall Kroeker; Stefan O Schoenberg; Ulrike I Attenberger Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Philipp Riffel; Ulrike I Attenberger; Stephan Kannengiesser; Marcel D Nickel; Carolyn Arndt; Mathias Meyer; Stefan O Schoenberg; Henrik J Michaely Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Clifton R Haider; Houchun Harry Hu; Norbert G Campeau; John Huston; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Michael Fenchel; Joerg Doering; Achim Seeger; Ulrich Kramer; Kilian Rittig; Bernhard Klumpp; Claus D Claussen; Stephan Miller Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-11-10 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