High Spatial-Resolution CE-MRA of the Carotid Circulation With Parallel Imaging: Comparison of Image Quality Between 2 Different Acceleration Factors at 3.0 Tesla

Purpose:We sought to evaluate and compare the image quality and vessel delineation of the carotid arteries with high spatial-resolution contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) at 3.0 T using integrated parallel acquisition (iPAT) with acceleration factors of 2 and 4. Materials and Methods:Using an 8-channel neurovascular array coil, we performed prospective high-spatial resolution CE-MRA at 3.0 T of the head and neck on 24 patients (11 men, 13 women, ages 37–89) with suspected arterio-occlusive disease who were assigned randomly to 2 groups. Twelve patients (group A) were examined with a 3D-GRE sequence using iPAT with acceleration factor of 2. For the next 12 patients (group B) a near-identical sequence with an acceleration factor of 4 was applied. Higher iPAT factors were used to increase the spatial-resolution while keeping scan time unchanged. Two volunteers were scanned by both protocols. Phantom measurements were performed to assess the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The presence of artifact, noise, image quality of the arterial segments, and the presence and degree of arterial stenosis were evaluated independently by 2 radiologists. Statistical analysis of data was performed by using Wilcoxon rank sum test and 2-sample Student t test (P < 0.05 was indicative a statistically significant difference). The interobserver variability was tested by kappa coefficient. Results:SNR values were significantly lower when iPAT with acceleration factor of 4 was used (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between 2 groups in regards to image noise (P= 0.67) and artifact (P = 0.8). Both readers visualized the majority of carotid circulation with good image quality in both groups. For smaller intracranial arteries, such as the second-division of anterior and middle cerebral artery, anterior communicating artery, and superior cerebellar artery, the image quality and vessel delineation was significantly better at an iPAT factor of 4 (P < 0.01). The overall interobserver agreement for both the vessel depiction, and detection of arterial stenoses was higher in group B compared with group A. Conclusion:Use of parallel acquisition techniques with a high acceleration factor (iPAT-4) results in superior depiction of small intracranial arterial segments. Imaging at higher magnetic field strength, in addition to the use of an optimized 8-channel array coil, provides sufficient SNR to support faster parallel acquisition protocols, leading to improved spatial-resolution. More extensive clinical studies are warranted to establish the range of applications and confirm the accuracy of the technique.

[1]  D. Dormont,et al.  Proximal great vessels of aortic arch: comparison of three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography. , 2003, Radiology.

[2]  J. Finn,et al.  Three-dimensional contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the thoraco-abdominal vessels. , 2005, Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America.

[3]  J. Gauvrit,et al.  Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the craniocervical vessels: a review , 1999, Neuroradiology.

[4]  I Mader,et al.  Dynamic 3D MR angiography of intra- and extracranial vascular malformations at 3T: a technical note. , 2005, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[5]  S. Schoenberg,et al.  High‐resolution MR‐imaging of the liver with T2‐weighted sequences using integrated parallel imaging: Comparison of prospective motion correction and respiratory triggering , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[6]  J. R. Landis,et al.  An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. , 1977, Biometrics.

[7]  Martin Requardt,et al.  Time-Resolved Contrast-Enhanced Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Angiography of the Chest: Combination of Parallel Imaging With View Sharing (TREAT) , 2005, Investigative radiology.

[8]  Horst Urbach,et al.  Time-of-flight MR angiography: comparison of 3.0-T imaging and 1.5-T imaging--initial experience. , 2003, Radiology.

[9]  Tim Leiner,et al.  Accuracy of Semiautomated Analysis of 3D Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography for Detection and Quantification of Aortoiliac Stenoses , 2005, Investigative radiology.

[10]  J Paul Finn,et al.  Time-Resolved Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography of the Head and Neck at 3.0 Tesla: Initial Results , 2006, Investigative radiology.

[11]  J Huston,et al.  Magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 Tesla: initial clinical experience. , 2001, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[12]  J. Frisoli,et al.  Nephrotoxicity of high‐dose gadolinium compared with iodinated contrast , 1996, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[13]  James C Carr,et al.  High-resolution breath-hold contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the entire carotid circulation. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  C Marsault,et al.  Carotid artery stenosis: prospective comparison of CT, three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR, and conventional angiography. , 2001, Radiology.

[15]  P. Boesiger,et al.  SENSE: Sensitivity encoding for fast MRI , 1999, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[16]  R. Edelman,et al.  Contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography with simultaneous acquisition of spatial harmonics: A pilot study. , 2000, Radiology.

[17]  Robin M Heidemann,et al.  Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA) , 2002, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[18]  M. Prince,et al.  Arterial-phase three-dimensional contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the carotid arteries. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  M. Bernstein,et al.  High‐resolution intracranial and cervical MRA at 3.0T: Technical considerations and initial experience , 2001, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[20]  G. Schroth,et al.  Contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography of the carotid artery: comparison with conventional digital subtraction angiography. , 2002, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[21]  F. Shellock,et al.  Safety of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[22]  Stephen J Riederer,et al.  3.0‐Tesla MR angiography of intracranial aneurysms: Comparison of time‐of‐flight and contrast‐enhanced techniques , 2005, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[23]  P. Nederkoorn,et al.  Carotid artery stenosis: accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography for diagnosis. , 2003, Radiology.

[24]  J. Bamford,et al.  Use of magnetic resonance angiography to select candidates with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis for surgery: systematic review , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  J C Froment,et al.  Accuracy of three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography in the assessment of extracranial carotid artery disease. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.