Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Korean Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (대한자기공명의과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical Experience with 3.0 T MR for Cardiac Imaging in Patients: Comparison to 1.5 T using Individually Optimized Imaging Protocols

장비 별 최적화된 영상 프로토콜을 이용한 환자에서의 3.0T 심장 자기공명영상의 임상경험: 1.5 T 자기공명영상과의 비교

  • Ko, Jeong Min (Department of Radiology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Jung, Jung Im (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Lee, Bae Young (Department of Radiology, St. Paul's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 고정민 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 성빈센트병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 정정임 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 서울성모병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 이배영 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 성바오로병원 영상의학과)
  • Received : 2012.07.12
  • Accepted : 2013.04.01
  • Published : 2013.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : To report our clinical experience with cardiac 3.0 T MRI in patients compared with 1.5 T using individually optimized imaging protocols. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 30 consecutive patients and 20 consecutive patients who underwent 1.5 T and 3 T cardiac MRI within 10 months. A comparison study was performed by measuring the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and the image quality (by grading each sequence on a 5-point scale, regarding the presence of artifacts). Results: In morphologic and viability studies, the use of 3.0 T provided increase of the baseline SNRs and CNRs, respectively (T1: SNR 29%, p < 0.001, CNR 37%, p < 0.001; T2-SPAIR: SNR 13%, p = 0.068, CNR 18%, p = 0.059; viability imaging: SNR 45%, p = 0.017, CNR 37%, p = 0.135) without significant impairment of the image quality (T1: $3.8{\pm}0.9$ vs. $3.9{\pm}0.7$, p = 0.438; T2-SPAIR: $3.8{\pm}0.9$ vs. $3.9{\pm}0.5$, p = 0.744; viability imaging: $4.5{\pm}0.8$ vs. $4.7{\pm}0.6$, p = 0.254). Although the image qualities of 3.0 T functional cine images were slightly lower than those of 1.5 T images ($3.6{\pm}0.7$ vs. $4.2{\pm}0.6$, p < 0.001), the mean SNR and CNR at 3.0 T were significantly improved (SNR 143% increase, CNR 108% increase, p < 0.001). With our imaging protocol for 3.0 T perfusion imaging, there was an insignificant decrease in the SNR (11% decrease, p = 0.172) and CNR (7% decrease, p = 0.638). However, the overall image quality was significantly improved ($4.6{\pm}0.5$ vs. $4.0{\pm}0.8$, p = 0.006). Conclusion: With our experience, 3.0 T MRI was shown to be feasible for the routine assessment of cardiac imaging.

목적: 본 연구의 목적은 환자에서 임상적으로 사용되는 영상 프로토콜을 이용하여 시행된 3.0 T 심장자기공명영상을 1.5 T 와 비교하여 그 유용성을 알아보고자 하는데 있다. 대상과 방법: 10개월간 30명의 환자에서 얻은 1.5 T 자기공명영상과 20명의 3.0 T 영상을 후향적으로 비교하였다. 각각의 영상에 대하여 신호 대 잡음비 (signal-to-noise ratio: SNR), 대조도 대 잡음비 (contrast-to-noise ratio: CNR), 영상 화질 (artifact의 정도에 따라서 5단계로 분류)을 평가하고 비교하였다. 결과: T1심장 형태 영상 및 심근 생존능 평가 영상에서는 3.0 T 자기공명영상에서 영상화질 (T1: $3.8{\pm}0.9$ vs. $3.9{\pm}0.7$, p=0.438; T2-SPAIR: $3.8{\pm}0.9$ vs. $3.9{\pm}0.5$, p=0.744; 지연기 조영 증강 영상: $4.5{\pm}0.8$ vs. $4.7{\pm}0.6$, p=0.254)의 유의한 저하 없이 SNR과 CNR의 향상을 보였다 (T1: SNR 29%, p < 0.001, CNR 37%, p < 0.001; T2-SPAIR: SNR 13%, p=0.068, CNR 18%, p=0.059; 지연기 조영 증강 영상: SNR 45%, p=0.017, CNR 37%, p=0.135). 심장Cine 영상에서 3.0 T 심장영상이 1.5 T 영상과 비교하여 영상화질($3.6{\pm}0.7$ vs. $4.2{\pm}0.6$, p < 0.001)이 다소 떨어졌으나 SNR과 CNR의 유의한 상승을 보였다 (SNR 143% 상승, CNR 108% 상승, p < 0.001). 심근관류영상에서는 SNR (11% 감소, p=0.172)과 CNR (7% 감소, p=0.638) 이 통계적으로 유의하지 않은 정도로 감소되었으나 영상화질($4.6{\pm}0.5$ vs. $4.0{\pm}0.8$, p=0.006)은 유의한 향상을 보였다. 결론: 실제 임상영역에서 사용되는 영상 프로토콜로 시행된 3.0 T 심장자기공명영상은 1.5T 영상과 비교하여 충분한 영상의 질을 제공하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Danias PG, Stuber M, Botnar RM, et al. Coronary MR angiography clinical applications and potential for imaging coronary artery disease. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2003;11:81-99 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1064-9689(02)00022-3
  2. Edelman RR. Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging of the Heart: Overview of the Literature. Radiology 2004;232:653-668 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2323031558
  3. Lima JA, Desai MY. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: current and emerging applications. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:1164-1171 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.06.033
  4. Pennell DJ, Sechtem UP, Higgins CB, et al. Clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR): consensus Panel report. Eur Heart J 2004;25:1940-1965 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehj.2004.06.040
  5. Hinton DP, Wald LL, Pitts J, Schmitt F. Comparison of cardiac MRI on 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla clinical whole body systems. Invest Radiol 2003;38:436-442
  6. Gutberlet M, Schwinge K, Freyhardt P, et al. Influence of high magnetic field strengths and parallel acquisition strategies on image quality in cardiac 2D CINE magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of 1.5 T vs. 3.0 T. Eur Radiol 2005;15:1586-1597 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2768-z
  7. Gutberlet M, Noeske R, Schwinge K, Freyhardt P, Felix R, Niendorf T. Comprehensive cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla: feasibility and implications for clinical applications. Invest Radiol 2006;41:154-167 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rli.0000195840.50230.10
  8. Michaely HJ, Nael K, Schoenberg SO, et al. Analysis of cardiac function--comparison between 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla cardiac cine magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary experience. Invest Radiol 2006;41:133-140 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rli.0000192023.96494.af
  9. Ligabue G, Fiocchi F, Ferraresi S, et al. 3-Tesla MRI for the evaluation of myocardial viability: a comparative study with 1.5-Tesla MRI. Radiol Med 2008;113:347 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-008-0256-7
  10. Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P. SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med 1999;42:952-962 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-2594(199911)42:5<952::AID-MRM16>3.0.CO;2-S
  11. Mascarenhas NB, Muthupillai R, Cheong B, Pereyra M, Flamm SD. Fast 3D cine steady-state free precession imaging with sensitivity encoding for assessment of left ventricular function in a single breath-hold. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:1235-1239 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.0169
  12. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press, 2006:613-617
  13. Sodickson DK, Manning WJ. Simultaneous acquisition of spatial harmonics (SMASH): fast imaging with radiofrequency coil arrays. Magn Reson Med 1997;38:591-603 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.1910380414
  14. Klumpp B, Fenchel M, Hoevelborn T, et al. Assessment of myocardial viability using delayed enhancement magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2006;41:661-667 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rli.0000233321.82194.09
  15. Noeske R, Seifert F, H. RK, Rinneberg H. Human cardiac imaging at 3 T using phased array coils. Magn Reson Med 2000;44:978-982 https://doi.org/10.1002/1522-2594(200012)44:6<978::AID-MRM22>3.0.CO;2-9
  16. Reeder SB, Faranesh AZ, Boxerman JL, McVeigh ER. In vivo measurement of T*2 and field inhomogeneity maps in the human heart at 1.5 T. Magn Reson Med 1998;39:988-998 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.1910390617
  17. Schar M, Kozerke S, Fischer SE, Boesiger P. Cardiac SSFP imaging at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2004;51:799-806 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20024
  18. Barkhausen J, Hunold P, Jochims M, Debatin JF. Imaging of myocardial perfusion with magnetic resonance. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;19:750-757 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20073
  19. Storey P, Chen Q, Li W, Edelman RR, Prasad PV. Band artifacts due to bulk motion. Magn Reson Med 2002;48:1028-1036 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.10314
  20. Di Bella EV, Parker DL, Sinusas AJ. On the dark rim artifact in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI myocardial perfusion studies. Magn Reson Med 2005;54:1295-1299 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20666
  21. Strach K, Meyer C, Thomas D, et al. High-resolution myocardial perfusion imaging at 3 T: comparison to 1.5 T in healthy volunteers. Eur Radiol 2007;17:1829-1835 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0560-3
  22. Cheng ASH, Pegg TJ, Karamitsos TD, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 3-tesla for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparison with 1.5- tesla. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:2440-2449 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.03.028
  23. Plein S, Bloomer TN, Ridgway JP, Jones TR, Bainbridge GJ, Sivananthan MU. Steady state free precession magnetic resonance imaging of the heart: comparison with segmented kspace gradient-echo imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;14: 230-236 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.1178