OBJECTIVE: Cervical contrast-enhanced MR angiography (MRA) has proven accurate and superior to noncontrast alternatives. We proposed the systematic investigation of dose reduction in contrast-enhanced MRA, hypothesizing heightened tolerance at 3 T vs 1.5 T. Quantitative and qualitative features were compared between full-dose and 50%-reduced dose examinations at 1.5 T and 3 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred eight cervical contrast-enhanced MRA examinations were reviewed for qualitative and quantitative (signal-to-noise ratio [SNR] and contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) features across four dose-field strength combinations: 1.5 T, 0.05 mmol/kg; 3 T, 0.05 mmol/kg; 1.5 T, 0.1 mmol/kg; and 3 T, 0.1 mmol/kg. Quantitative features were evaluated among the following segments: aortic arch, common carotid arteries, common carotid bifurcations, and cervical internal carotid arteries. A qualitative visual rating scale was applied for the same segments as well as to the vertebral arteries along their proximal (V1), intraforaminal (V2), and distal extraforaminal (V3) courses. Significant between-group differences were reported at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Qualitatively good arteriography was observed in all segments for all protocols. No significant qualitative differences between protocols were noted throughout evaluation of the anterior cervical circulation. Significant qualitative differences were observed only for V2 and V3 segments at half-dose 1.5-T compared with the remaining protocols (p < 0.05). No significant quantitative differences were present between full-dose and dose-reduced 3-T MRA in any segment. At 1.5 T, significant decrement in SNR and CNR at half-dose was present only within the cervical internal carotid artery. CONCLUSION: Dose reduction in cervical contrast-enhanced MRA is feasible at 3 T without significant compromise in arteriographic quality in most segments. Particularly at 3 T, arteriography is quantitatively and qualitatively robust and may be advisable in high-risk patients.
OBJECTIVE: Cervical contrast-enhanced MR angiography (MRA) has proven accurate and superior to noncontrast alternatives. We proposed the systematic investigation of dose reduction in contrast-enhanced MRA, hypothesizing heightened tolerance at 3 T vs 1.5 T. Quantitative and qualitative features were compared between full-dose and 50%-reduced dose examinations at 1.5 T and 3 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred eight cervical contrast-enhanced MRA examinations were reviewed for qualitative and quantitative (signal-to-noise ratio [SNR] and contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) features across four dose-field strength combinations: 1.5 T, 0.05 mmol/kg; 3 T, 0.05 mmol/kg; 1.5 T, 0.1 mmol/kg; and 3 T, 0.1 mmol/kg. Quantitative features were evaluated among the following segments: aortic arch, common carotid arteries, common carotid bifurcations, and cervical internal carotid arteries. A qualitative visual rating scale was applied for the same segments as well as to the vertebral arteries along their proximal (V1), intraforaminal (V2), and distal extraforaminal (V3) courses. Significant between-group differences were reported at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Qualitatively good arteriography was observed in all segments for all protocols. No significant qualitative differences between protocols were noted throughout evaluation of the anterior cervical circulation. Significant qualitative differences were observed only for V2 and V3 segments at half-dose 1.5-T compared with the remaining protocols (p < 0.05). No significant quantitative differences were present between full-dose and dose-reduced 3-T MRA in any segment. At 1.5 T, significant decrement in SNR and CNR at half-dose was present only within the cervical internal carotid artery. CONCLUSION: Dose reduction in cervical contrast-enhanced MRA is feasible at 3 T without significant compromise in arteriographic quality in most segments. Particularly at 3 T, arteriography is quantitatively and qualitatively robust and may be advisable in high-risk patients.
Authors: Liam Timms; Tianyi Zhou; Yue Lyu; Ju Qiao; Vishala Mishra; Rita Maria Lahoud; Gayatri Veeramani Jayaraman; Andrew S Allegretti; David Drew; Ravi T Seethamraju; Mukesh Harisinghani; Srinivas Sridhar Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-03-05