Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.13104/jksmrm.2013.17.2.83

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

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)
Publication Information
Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging / v.17, no.2, 2013 , pp. 83-90 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
3.0 Tesla; Cardiac MR; SNR; CNR; Image quality;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Storey P, Chen Q, Li W, Edelman RR, Prasad PV. Band artifacts due to bulk motion. Magn Reson Med 2002;48:1028-1036   DOI   ScienceOn
2 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   DOI   ScienceOn
3 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   DOI
4 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   DOI
5 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   DOI
6 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   DOI   ScienceOn
7 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   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P. SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med 1999;42:952-962   DOI   ScienceOn
9 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   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press, 2006:613-617
11 Sodickson DK, Manning WJ. Simultaneous acquisition of spatial harmonics (SMASH): fast imaging with radiofrequency coil arrays. Magn Reson Med 1997;38:591-603   DOI   ScienceOn
12 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   DOI
13 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   DOI
14 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   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Schar M, Kozerke S, Fischer SE, Boesiger P. Cardiac SSFP imaging at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2004;51:799-806   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Barkhausen J, Hunold P, Jochims M, Debatin JF. Imaging of myocardial perfusion with magnetic resonance. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;19:750-757   DOI   ScienceOn
17 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   DOI   ScienceOn
18 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   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Lima JA, Desai MY. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: current and emerging applications. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:1164-1171   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Edelman RR. Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging of the Heart: Overview of the Literature. Radiology 2004;232:653-668   DOI   ScienceOn
21 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   DOI   ScienceOn
22 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
23 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   DOI   ScienceOn