These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Flow-sensitive 4D MRI of the thoracic aorta: comparison of image quality, quantitative flow, and wall parameters at 1.5 T and 3 T. Author: Strecker C, Harloff A, Wallis W, Markl M. Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging; 2012 Nov; 36(5):1097-103. PubMed ID: 22745007. Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of field strength on flow-sensitive 4D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the thoracic aorta. A volunteer study at 1.5 T and 3 T was conducted to compare phase-contrast MR angiography (MRA) and 3D flow visualization quality as well as quantification of aortic hemodynamics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were examined by flow-sensitive 4D MRI at both 1.5 T and 3 T MRI with identical imaging parameters (TE/TR = 6/5.1 msec, spatial/temporal resolution ≈2 mm/40.8 msec). Analysis included assessment of image quality of derived aortic 3D phase contrast (PC) angiography and 3D flow visualization (semiquantitative grading on a 0-2 scale, two blinded observers) and quantification of blood flow velocities, net flow per cardiac cycle, wall shear stress (WSS), and velocity noise. RESULTS: Quality of 3D blood flow visualization (average grading = 1.8 ± 0.4 at 3 T vs. 1.1 ± 0.7 at 1.5 T) and the depiction of aortic lumen geometry by 3D PC-MRA (1.7 ± 0.5 vs. 1.2 ± 0.6) were significantly (P < 0.01) improved at 3 T while velocity noise was significantly higher (P < 0.01) at 1.5 T. Velocity quantification resulted in minimally altered (0.05 m/s, 3 mL/cycle and 0.01 N/m(2)) but not statistically different (P = 0.40, P = 0.39, and P = 0.82) systolic peak velocities, net flow, and WSS for 1.5 T compared to 3 T. CONCLUSION: Flow-sensitive 4D MRI at 3 T provided improved image quality without additional artifacts related to higher fields. Imaging at 1.5 T MRI, which is more widely available, was also feasible and provided information on aortic 3D hemodynamics of moderate quality with identical performance regarding quantitative analysis.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]