Why the study?
Does cardiac CINE imaging at 3.0 T improve signal parameters and maintain volumetric accuracy compared to 1.5 T?
Does cardiac CINE imaging at 3.0 T improve signal parameters and maintain volumetric accuracy compared to 1.5 T?
Cardiac CINE MRI at 3.0 T provides significantly higher contrast-to-noise ratio compared to 1.5 T, compensating for the signal loss associated with accelerated parallel imaging while maintaining volumetric accuracy.
Supports 3T CINE for higher CNR with parallel imaging; leaves open prospective validation of volumetric accuracy.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the impact of 3.0 T on accelerated CINE steady-state free precession (SSFP) regarding signal parameters and its volumetric accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten individuals underwent cardiac CINE imaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T using standard single-slice CINE and multislice TSENSE-accelerated CINE (5 slices/breath-hold) with 4-fold acceleration. Data were evaluated for left ventricular volumetric parameters (EDV, ESV, and EF) as well as for SNR and CNR. Phantom based data allowed for g-factor evaluation for estimation of noise levels for accelerated data sets. Volumetric results and signal parameters were compared with results of single-slice CINE SSFP at 1.5 T as standard of reference (SOR). RESULTS: Single-slice CINE at 3.0 T showed a approximately 90% increase in CNR compared with the SOR (P < 0.001). At 3.0 T, TSENSE CINE showed a less pronounced estimated loss in CNR (-58 +/- 6%) compared with single-slice CINE than at 1.5 T (-71 +/- 2%). 3.0 T TSENSE CINE showed a 21 +/- 18% lower CNR than the nonaccelerated 1.5 T CINE (P < 0.05). EF results for all data sets did not show any significant error while for EDV some errors have been encountered. CONCLUSION: 3.0 T permits compensation for the high CNR loss, which accompanies the 4-fold TSENSE acceleration at 1.5 T and shows volumetric accuracy. The use of parallel imaging may help to alleviate SAR limitations at higher field strength.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wintersperger et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: