Cargando…
Beat-to-beat respiratory motion correction with near 100% efficiency: a quantitative assessment using high-resolution coronary artery imaging()
This study quantitatively assesses the effectiveness of retrospective beat-to-beat respiratory motion correction (B2B-RMC) at near 100% efficiency using high-resolution coronary artery imaging. Three-dimensional (3D) spiral images were obtained in a coronary respiratory motion phantom with B2B-RMC a...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3082051/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21292418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2010.11.004 |
Sumario: | This study quantitatively assesses the effectiveness of retrospective beat-to-beat respiratory motion correction (B2B-RMC) at near 100% efficiency using high-resolution coronary artery imaging. Three-dimensional (3D) spiral images were obtained in a coronary respiratory motion phantom with B2B-RMC and navigator gating. In vivo, targeted 3D coronary imaging was performed in 10 healthy subjects using B2B-RMC spiral and navigator gated balanced steady-state free-precession (nav-bSSFP) techniques. Vessel diameter and sharpness in proximal and mid arteries were used as a measure of respiratory motion compensation effectiveness and compared between techniques. Phantom acquisitions with B2B-RMC were sharper than those acquired with navigator gating (B2B-RMC vs. navigator gating: 1.01±0.02 mm(−1) vs. 0.86±0.08 mm(−1), P<.05). In vivo B2B-RMC respiratory efficiency was significantly and substantially higher (99.7%±0.5%) than nav-bSSFP (44.0%±8.9%, P<.0001). Proximal and mid vessel sharpnesses were similar (B2B-RMC vs. nav-bSSFP, proximal: 1.00±0.14 mm(−1) vs. 1.08±0.11 mm(−1), mid: 1.01±0.11 mm(−1) vs. 1.05±0.12 mm(−1); both P=not significant [ns]). Mid vessel diameters were not significantly different (2.85±0.39 mm vs. 2.80±0.35 mm, P=ns), but proximal B2B-RMC diameters were slightly higher (2.85±0.38 mm vs. 2.70±0.34 mm, P<.05), possibly due to contrast differences. The respiratory efficiency of B2B-RMC is less variable and significantly higher than navigator gating. Phantom and in vivo vessel sharpness and diameter values suggest that respiratory motion compensation is equally effective. |
---|