Cardiovascular MR imaging at 3 T: opportunities, challenges, and solutions.

Although 3-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is well established in neuroradiology and musculoskeletal imaging, it is in the nascent stages in cardiovascular imaging applications, and there is limited literature on this topic. The primary advantage of 3 T over 1.5 T is a higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), which can be used as such or traded off to improve spatial or temporal resolution and decrease acquisition time. However, the actual gain in SNR is limited by other factors and modifications in sequences adapted for use at 3 T. Higher resonance frequencies result in improved spectral resolution, which is beneficial for fat suppression and spectroscopy. The higher T1 values of tissues at 3 T aid in myocardial tagging, angiography, and perfusion and delayed-enhancement sequences. However, there are substantial challenges with 3-T cardiac MR imaging, including higher magnetic field and radiofrequency inhomogeneities and susceptibility effects, which diminish image quality. Off-resonance artifacts are particularly challenging, especially with steady-state free precession sequences. These artifacts can be managed by using higher-order shimming, frequency scouts, or low repetition times. B1 inhomogeneities can be managed by using radiofrequency shimming, multitransmit coils, or adiabatic pulses. Chemical shifts are also increased at 3 T. The higher radiofrequency results in higher radiofrequency deposition power and a higher specific absorption rate. MR angiography, dynamic first-pass perfusion sequences, myocardial tagging, and MR spectroscopy are more effective at 3 T, whereas delayed-enhancement, flow quantification, and black-blood sequences are comparable at 1.5 T and 3 T. Knowledge of the relevant physics helps in identifying artifacts and modifying sequences to optimize image quality. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

[1]  Thoralf Niendorf,et al.  Myocardial T1 and T2 mapping at 3 T: reference values, influencing factors and implications , 2013, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[2]  M. Freeman,et al.  Current state of the art , 2012 .

[3]  S. Plein,et al.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial , 2012, The Lancet.

[4]  Thoralf Niendorf,et al.  Toward cardiovascular MRI at 7 T: clinical needs, technical solutions and research promises , 2010, European Radiology.

[5]  Sukru Mehmet Erturk,et al.  Use of 3.0-T MR imaging for evaluation of the abdomen. , 2009, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[6]  M. Jerosch-Herold,et al.  Accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance of absolute myocardial blood flow with a high-field system: comparison with conventional field strength. , 2009, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[7]  Kevin C. Chan,et al.  Myocardial T2 quantitation in patients with iron overload at 3 Tesla , 2009, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[8]  R. Pettigrew,et al.  Profile order and time‐dependent artifacts in contrast‐enhanced coronary MR angiography at 3T: Origin and prevention , 2009, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[9]  A. Quyyumi,et al.  Variability of carotid artery measurements on 3-Tesla MRI and its impact on sample size calculation for clinical research , 2009, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[10]  A. Khera,et al.  Assessment and Reproducibility of Aortic Atherosclerosis Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Impact of 3-Tesla Field Strength and Parallel Imaging , 2008, Investigative radiology.

[11]  G. Ligabue,et al.  3-Tesla MRI for the evaluation of myocardial viability: a comparative study with 1.5-Tesla MRI , 2008, La radiologia medica.

[12]  Krishna S Nayak,et al.  Measurement and characterization of RF nonuniformity over the heart at 3T using body coil transmission , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[13]  C. Kuhl,et al.  Whole-body high-field-strength (3.0-T) MR Imaging in Clinical Practice. Part I. Technical considerations and clinical applications. , 2008, Radiology.

[14]  M. Reiser,et al.  Inversion Recovery Single-Shot TurboFLASH for Assessment of Myocardial Infarction at 3 Tesla , 2007, Investigative radiology.

[15]  Matthias Stuber,et al.  Assessment of the carotid artery by MRI at 3T: A study on reproducibility , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[16]  Carissa G. Fonseca,et al.  Pulmonary MR perfusion at 3.0 Tesla using a blood pool contrast agent: Initial results in a swine model , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[17]  C. Claussen,et al.  Assessment of Myocardial Viability Using Delayed Enhancement Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3.0 Tesla , 2006, Investigative radiology.

[18]  Brian M Dale,et al.  Abdominal MRI at 3.0 T: the basics revisited. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  M. McConnell,et al.  Multicontrast black‐blood MRI of carotid arteries: Comparison between 1.5 and 3 tesla magnetic field strengths , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[20]  O. Simonetti,et al.  Multislice dark‐blood carotid artery wall imaging: A 1.5 T and 3.0 T comparison , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[21]  Roderic I Pettigrew,et al.  Effect of Gd‐DTPA‐BMA on blood and myocardial T1 at 1.5T and 3T in humans , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[22]  Thoralf Niendorf,et al.  Comprehensive Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3.0 Tesla: Feasibility and Implications for Clinical Applications , 2006, Investigative radiology.

[23]  S. Schoenberg,et al.  Phase-Sensitive Inversion Recovery (PSIR) Single-Shot TrueFISP for Assessment of Myocardial Infarction at 3 Tesla , 2006, Investigative radiology.

[24]  Leon Axel,et al.  B0 and B1‐insensitive uniform T1‐weighting for quantitative, first‐pass myocardial perfusion magnetic resonance imaging , 2005 .

[25]  D. Parker,et al.  On the dark rim artifact in dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI myocardial perfusion studies , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[26]  M. Bronskill,et al.  T1, T2 relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[27]  O. Simonetti,et al.  Three‐dimensional breathhold SSFP coronary MRA: A comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T , 2005, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[28]  M. Gutberlet,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 , 2005, European Radiology.

[29]  Matthias Gutberlet,et al.  In vitro validation of phase‐contrast flow measurements at 3 T in comparison to 1.5 T: Precision, accuracy, and signal‐to‐noise ratios , 2005, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[30]  Debiao Li,et al.  Coronary arteries at 3.0 T: Contrast‐enhanced magnetization‐prepared three‐dimensional breathhold MR angiography , 2005, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[31]  M. L. Lauzon,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3.0 Tesla: Challenges and Advantages in Clinical Neurological Imaging , 2003, Investigative radiology.

[32]  Robert V Mulkern,et al.  Double inversion black‐blood fast spin‐echo imaging of the human heart: A comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T , 2003, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[33]  Debiao Li,et al.  Artifact reduction in true‐FISP imaging of the coronary arteries by adjusting imaging frequency , 2003, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[34]  René M. Botnar,et al.  Preliminary report on in vivo coronary MRA at 3 Tesla in humans , 2002, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[35]  J. Schenck Safety of Strong, Static Magnetic Fields , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[36]  P. Kellman,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of stress perfusion CMR in comparison with quantitative coronary angiography: fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and qualitative assessment. , 2014, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[37]  K. Nayak,et al.  Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Open Access Three Dimensional First-pass Myocardial Perfusion Imaging at 3t: Feasibility Study , 2008 .

[38]  M. Robson,et al.  Assessment of left atrial volumes at 1.5 Tesla and 3 Tesla using FLASH and SSFP cine imaging. , 2007, Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[39]  E. Fleck,et al.  Improved quantitative assessment of left ventricular volumes using TGrE approach after application of extracellular contrast agent at 3 Tesla. , 2007, Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[40]  P. Kellman,et al.  Imaging sequences for first pass perfusion --a review. , 2007, Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[41]  J. Glockner,et al.  3 Tesla MR imaging provides improved contrast in first-pass myocardial perfusion imaging over a range of gadolinium doses. , 2005, Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[42]  René M. Botnar,et al.  Initial experiences with in vivo right coronary artery human MR vessel wall imaging at 3 tesla. , 2003, Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.