Cargando…

Coronary MR angiography at 3T: fat suppression versus water-fat separation

OBJECTIVES: To compare Dixon water-fat suppression with spectral pre-saturation with inversion recovery (SPIR) at 3T for coronary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and to demonstrate the feasibility of fat suppressed coronary MRA at 3T without administration of a contrast agent. MATERIALS AND MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nezafat, Maryam, Henningsson, Markus, Ripley, David P., Dedieu, Nathalie, Greil, Gerald, Greenwood, John P., Börnert, Peter, Plein, Sven, Botnar, René M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27038934
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10334-016-0550-7
_version_ 1782455200852738048
author Nezafat, Maryam
Henningsson, Markus
Ripley, David P.
Dedieu, Nathalie
Greil, Gerald
Greenwood, John P.
Börnert, Peter
Plein, Sven
Botnar, René M.
author_facet Nezafat, Maryam
Henningsson, Markus
Ripley, David P.
Dedieu, Nathalie
Greil, Gerald
Greenwood, John P.
Börnert, Peter
Plein, Sven
Botnar, René M.
author_sort Nezafat, Maryam
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare Dixon water-fat suppression with spectral pre-saturation with inversion recovery (SPIR) at 3T for coronary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and to demonstrate the feasibility of fat suppressed coronary MRA at 3T without administration of a contrast agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Coronary MRA with Dixon water-fat separation or with SPIR fat suppression was compared on a 3T scanner equipped with a 32-channel cardiac receiver coil. Eight healthy volunteers were examined. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), right coronary artery (RCA), and left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery sharpness and length were measured and statistically compared. Two experienced cardiologists graded the visual image quality of reformatted Dixon and SPIR images (1: poor quality to 5: excellent quality). RESULTS: Coronary MRA images in healthy volunteers showed improved contrast with the Dixon technique compared to SPIR (CNR (blood-fat): Dixon = 14.9 ± 2.9 and SPIR = 13.9 ± 2.1; p = 0.08, CNR (blood-myocardium): Dixon = 10.2 ± 2.7 and SPIR = 9.11 ± 2.6; p = 0.1). The Dixon method led to similar fat suppression (fat SNR with Dixon: 2.1 ± 0.5 vs. SPIR: 2.4 ± 1.2, p = 0.3), but resulted in significantly increased SNR of blood (blood SNR with Dixon: 19.9 ± 4.5 vs. SPIR: 15.5 ± 3.1, p < 0.05). This means the residual fat signal is slightly lower with the Dixon compared to the SIPR technique (although not significant), while the SNR of blood is significantly higher with the Dixon technique. Vessel sharpness of the RCA was similar for Dixon and SPIR (57 ± 7 % vs. 56 ± 9 %, p = 0.2), while the RCA visualized vessel length was increased compared to SPIR fat suppression (107 ± 21 vs. 101 ± 21 mm, p < 0.001). For the LAD, vessel sharpness (50 ± 13 % vs. 50 ± 7 %, p = 0.4) and vessel length (92 ± 46 vs. 90 ± 47 mm, p = 0.4) were similar with both techniques. Consequently, the Dixon technique resulted in an improved visual score of the coronary arteries in the water fat separated images of healthy subjects (RCA: 4.6 ± 0.5 vs. 4.1 ± 0.7, p = 0.01, LAD: 4.1 ± 0.7 vs. 3.5 ± 0.8, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Dixon water-fat separation can significantly improve coronary artery image quality without the use of a contrast agent at 3T.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5033991
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50339912016-10-09 Coronary MR angiography at 3T: fat suppression versus water-fat separation Nezafat, Maryam Henningsson, Markus Ripley, David P. Dedieu, Nathalie Greil, Gerald Greenwood, John P. Börnert, Peter Plein, Sven Botnar, René M. MAGMA Research Article OBJECTIVES: To compare Dixon water-fat suppression with spectral pre-saturation with inversion recovery (SPIR) at 3T for coronary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and to demonstrate the feasibility of fat suppressed coronary MRA at 3T without administration of a contrast agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Coronary MRA with Dixon water-fat separation or with SPIR fat suppression was compared on a 3T scanner equipped with a 32-channel cardiac receiver coil. Eight healthy volunteers were examined. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), right coronary artery (RCA), and left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery sharpness and length were measured and statistically compared. Two experienced cardiologists graded the visual image quality of reformatted Dixon and SPIR images (1: poor quality to 5: excellent quality). RESULTS: Coronary MRA images in healthy volunteers showed improved contrast with the Dixon technique compared to SPIR (CNR (blood-fat): Dixon = 14.9 ± 2.9 and SPIR = 13.9 ± 2.1; p = 0.08, CNR (blood-myocardium): Dixon = 10.2 ± 2.7 and SPIR = 9.11 ± 2.6; p = 0.1). The Dixon method led to similar fat suppression (fat SNR with Dixon: 2.1 ± 0.5 vs. SPIR: 2.4 ± 1.2, p = 0.3), but resulted in significantly increased SNR of blood (blood SNR with Dixon: 19.9 ± 4.5 vs. SPIR: 15.5 ± 3.1, p < 0.05). This means the residual fat signal is slightly lower with the Dixon compared to the SIPR technique (although not significant), while the SNR of blood is significantly higher with the Dixon technique. Vessel sharpness of the RCA was similar for Dixon and SPIR (57 ± 7 % vs. 56 ± 9 %, p = 0.2), while the RCA visualized vessel length was increased compared to SPIR fat suppression (107 ± 21 vs. 101 ± 21 mm, p < 0.001). For the LAD, vessel sharpness (50 ± 13 % vs. 50 ± 7 %, p = 0.4) and vessel length (92 ± 46 vs. 90 ± 47 mm, p = 0.4) were similar with both techniques. Consequently, the Dixon technique resulted in an improved visual score of the coronary arteries in the water fat separated images of healthy subjects (RCA: 4.6 ± 0.5 vs. 4.1 ± 0.7, p = 0.01, LAD: 4.1 ± 0.7 vs. 3.5 ± 0.8, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Dixon water-fat separation can significantly improve coronary artery image quality without the use of a contrast agent at 3T. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016-04-02 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5033991/ /pubmed/27038934 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10334-016-0550-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research Article
Nezafat, Maryam
Henningsson, Markus
Ripley, David P.
Dedieu, Nathalie
Greil, Gerald
Greenwood, John P.
Börnert, Peter
Plein, Sven
Botnar, René M.
Coronary MR angiography at 3T: fat suppression versus water-fat separation
title Coronary MR angiography at 3T: fat suppression versus water-fat separation
title_full Coronary MR angiography at 3T: fat suppression versus water-fat separation
title_fullStr Coronary MR angiography at 3T: fat suppression versus water-fat separation
title_full_unstemmed Coronary MR angiography at 3T: fat suppression versus water-fat separation
title_short Coronary MR angiography at 3T: fat suppression versus water-fat separation
title_sort coronary mr angiography at 3t: fat suppression versus water-fat separation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27038934
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10334-016-0550-7
work_keys_str_mv AT nezafatmaryam coronarymrangiographyat3tfatsuppressionversuswaterfatseparation
AT henningssonmarkus coronarymrangiographyat3tfatsuppressionversuswaterfatseparation
AT ripleydavidp coronarymrangiographyat3tfatsuppressionversuswaterfatseparation
AT dedieunathalie coronarymrangiographyat3tfatsuppressionversuswaterfatseparation
AT greilgerald coronarymrangiographyat3tfatsuppressionversuswaterfatseparation
AT greenwoodjohnp coronarymrangiographyat3tfatsuppressionversuswaterfatseparation
AT bornertpeter coronarymrangiographyat3tfatsuppressionversuswaterfatseparation
AT pleinsven coronarymrangiographyat3tfatsuppressionversuswaterfatseparation
AT botnarrenem coronarymrangiographyat3tfatsuppressionversuswaterfatseparation