PURPOSE: To determine whether CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST (CDT) volume-interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) improves image quality by reducing gadoxetate-disodium-associated transient arterial-phase motion artefacts in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI studies of the liver from 270 patients who had received gadoxetate disodium were retrospectively evaluated in regard to arterial timing accuracy and arterial phase motion artefact severity (VIBE: 90/270, CAIPIRINHA-VIBE: 90/270 and CDT-VIBE: 90/270 cases). Three independent and blinded readers assessed arterial phase timing and motion artefact severity (5-point scale). Interrater agreement was calculated by weighted kappa. Continuous variables were compared via a two-sided ANOVA, categorical variables via a χ2 test. An ordinal regression analysis was performed to identify other predictors of motion artefacts. RESULTS: CDT-VIBE improved correct late arterial timing rates and reduced motion-related image deterioration rates. Successful late arterial liver visualisation was achieved in 56.7% (VIBE) compared with 66.7% (CAIPIRINHA-VIBE) and 84.4% (CDT-VIBE) (P < 0.0001). Good/excellent image quality was achieved in 56.7% vs. 66.7% and 73.3%, respectively (P = 0.03). Male sex negatively influenced image quality (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: CDT-VIBE increases the diagnostic utility of gadoxetate disodium-based liver MRI by reducing respiratory motion artefacts and optimising late arterial visualisation compared with VIBE and CAIPIRINHA-VIBE. KEY POINTS: • CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST-VIBE-MRI (CDT) mitigates effects of acute transient dyspnoea caused by gadoxetate disodium. • CDT improves late arterial imaging compared with VIBE and CAIPIRINHA-VIBE. • The rate of ideal late arterial images is higher with CDT-VIBE vs. VIBE or CAIPI-VIBE. • The impact of respiratory motion artefacts on arterial phase images can be reduced.
PURPOSE: To determine whether CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST (CDT) volume-interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) improves image quality by reducing gadoxetate-disodium-associated transient arterial-phase motion artefacts in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI studies of the liver from 270 patients who had received gadoxetate disodium were retrospectively evaluated in regard to arterial timing accuracy and arterial phase motion artefact severity (VIBE: 90/270, CAIPIRINHA-VIBE: 90/270 and CDT-VIBE: 90/270 cases). Three independent and blinded readers assessed arterial phase timing and motion artefact severity (5-point scale). Interrater agreement was calculated by weighted kappa. Continuous variables were compared via a two-sided ANOVA, categorical variables via a χ2 test. An ordinal regression analysis was performed to identify other predictors of motion artefacts. RESULTS:CDT-VIBE improved correct late arterial timing rates and reduced motion-related image deterioration rates. Successful late arterial liver visualisation was achieved in 56.7% (VIBE) compared with 66.7% (CAIPIRINHA-VIBE) and 84.4% (CDT-VIBE) (P < 0.0001). Good/excellent image quality was achieved in 56.7% vs. 66.7% and 73.3%, respectively (P = 0.03). Male sex negatively influenced image quality (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION:CDT-VIBE increases the diagnostic utility of gadoxetate disodium-based liver MRI by reducing respiratory motion artefacts and optimising late arterial visualisation compared with VIBE and CAIPIRINHA-VIBE. KEY POINTS: • CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST-VIBE-MRI (CDT) mitigates effects of acute transient dyspnoea caused by gadoxetate disodium. • CDT improves late arterial imaging compared with VIBE and CAIPIRINHA-VIBE. • The rate of ideal late arterial images is higher with CDT-VIBE vs. VIBE or CAIPI-VIBE. • The impact of respiratory motion artefacts on arterial phase images can be reduced.
Entities:
Keywords:
Artefacts; Contrast media; Diagnostic imaging; Liver; Magnetic resonance imaging
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: N M Rofsky; V S Lee; G Laub; M A Pollack; G A Krinsky; D Thomasson; M M Ambrosino; J C Weinreb Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Philipp M Kazmierczak; Daniel Theisen; Kolja M Thierfelder; Wieland H Sommer; Maximilian F Reiser; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Konstantin Nikolaou Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Johannes Budjan; Melissa Ong; Philipp Riffel; John N Morelli; Henrik J Michaely; Stefan O Schoenberg; Stefan Haneder Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-08-17 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Mareen Sarah Kraus; Ailish C Coblentz; Vibhas S Deshpande; Johannes M Peeters; Pedro M Itriago-Leon; Govind B Chavhan Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2022-10-18
Authors: M-L Kromrey; D Tamada; H Johno; S Funayama; N Nagata; S Ichikawa; J-P Kühn; H Onishi; U Motosugi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 5.315