J Korean Soc Magn Reson Med.  2013 Jun;17(2):83-90. 10.13104/jksmrm.2013.17.2.83.

Clinical Experience with 3.0 T MR for Cardiac Imaging in Patients: Comparison to 1.5 T using Individually Optimized Imaging Protocols

• Ko JM
• Jung JI
• Lee BY

• KMID: 2099867
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.13104/jksmrm.2013.17.2.83

Abstract

PURPOSE
To report our clinical experience with cardiac 3.0 T MRI in patients compared with 1.5 T using individually optimized imaging protocols.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed 30 consecutive patients and 20 consecutive patients who underwent 1.5 T and 3 T cardiac MRI within 10 months. A comparison study was performed by measuring the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and the image quality (by grading each sequence on a 5-point scale, regarding the presence of artifacts).
RESULTS
In morphologic and viability studies, the use of 3.0 T provided increase of the baseline SNRs and CNRs, respectively (T1: SNR 29%, p < 0.001, CNR 37%, p < 0.001; T2-SPAIR: SNR 13%, p = 0.068, CNR 18%, p = 0.059; viability imaging: SNR 45%, p = 0.017, CNR 37%, p = 0.135) without significant impairment of the image quality (T1: 3.8 +/- 0.9 vs. 3.9 +/- 0.7, p = 0.438; T2-SPAIR: 3.8 +/- 0.9 vs. 3.9 +/- 0.5, p = 0.744; viability imaging: 4.5 +/- 0.8 vs. 4.7 +/- 0.6, p = 0.254). Although the image qualities of 3.0 T functional cine images were slightly lower than those of 1.5 T images (3.6 +/- 0.7 vs. 4.2 +/- 0.6, p < 0.001), the mean SNR and CNR at 3.0 T were significantly improved (SNR 143% increase, CNR 108% increase, p < 0.001). With our imaging protocol for 3.0 T perfusion imaging, there was an insignificant decrease in the SNR (11% decrease, p = 0.172) and CNR (7% decrease, p = 0.638). However, the overall image quality was significantly improved (4.6 +/- 0.5 vs. 4.0 +/- 0.8, p = 0.006).
CONCLUSION
With our experience, 3.0 T MRI was shown to be feasible for the routine assessment of cardiac imaging.

Keyword

3.0 Tesla; Cardiac MR; SNR; CNR; Image quality

MeSH Terms

Humans
Perfusion Imaging
Retrospective Studies
Signal-To-Noise Ratio

Reference

1. Danias PG, Stuber M, Botnar RM, et al. Coronary MR angiography clinical applications and potential for imaging coronary artery disease. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2003; 11:81–99.

2. Edelman RR. Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging of the Heart: Overview of the Literature. Radiology. 2004; 232:653–668.

3. Lima JA, Desai MY. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: current and emerging applications. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44:1164–1171.

4. Pennell DJ, Sechtem UP, Higgins CB, et al. Clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR): consensus Panel report. Eur Heart J. 2004; 25:1940–1965.

5. Hinton DP, Wald LL, Pitts J, Schmitt F. Comparison of cardiac MRI on 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla clinical whole body systems. Invest Radiol. 2003; 38:436–442.

6. Gutberlet M, Schwinge K, Freyhardt P, 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. Eur Radiol. 2005; 15:1586–1597.

7. Gutberlet M, Noeske R, Schwinge K, Freyhardt P, Felix R, Niendorf T. Comprehensive cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla: feasibility and implications for clinical applications. Invest Radiol. 2006; 41:154–167.

8. Michaely HJ, Nael K, Schoenberg SO, et al. Analysis of cardiac function--comparison between 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla cardiac cine magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary experience. Invest Radiol. 2006; 41:133–140.

9. Ligabue G, Fiocchi F, Ferraresi S, et al. 3-Tesla MRI for the evaluation of myocardial viability: a comparative study with 1.5-Tesla MRI. Radiol Med. 2008; 113:347.

10. Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P. SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med. 1999; 42:952–962.

11. Mascarenhas NB, Muthupillai R, Cheong B, Pereyra M, Flamm SD. Fast 3D cine steady-state free precession imaging with sensitivity encoding for assessment of left ventricular function in a single breath-hold. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187:1235–1239.

12. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press;2006. p. 613–617.

13. Sodickson DK, Manning WJ. Simultaneous acquisition of spatial harmonics (SMASH): fast imaging with radiofrequency coil arrays. Magn Reson Med. 1997; 38:591–603.

14. Klumpp B, Fenchel M, Hoevelborn T, et al. Assessment of myocardial viability using delayed enhancement magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol. 2006; 41:661–667.

15. Noeske R, Seifert F, Rhein KH, Rinneberg H. Human cardiac imaging at 3 T using phased array coils. Magn Reson Med. 2000; 44:978–982.

16. Reeder SB, Faranesh AZ, Boxerman JL, McVeigh ER. In vivo measurement of T*2 and field inhomogeneity maps in the human heart at 1.5 T. Magn Reson Med. 1998; 39:988–998.

17. Schär M, Kozerke S, Fischer SE, Boesiger P. Cardiac SSFP imaging at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med. 2004; 51:799–806.

18. Barkhausen J, Hunold P, Jochims M, Debatin JF. Imaging of myocardial perfusion with magnetic resonance. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004; 19:750–757.

19. Storey P, Chen Q, Li W, Edelman RR, Prasad PV. Band artifacts due to bulk motion. Magn Reson Med. 2002; 48:1028–1036.

20. Di Bella EV, Parker DL, Sinusas AJ. On the dark rim artifact in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI myocardial perfusion studies. Magn Reson Med. 2005; 54:1295–1299.

21. Strach K, Meyer C, Thomas D, et al. High-resolution myocardial perfusion imaging at 3 T: comparison to 1.5 T in healthy volunteers. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17:1829–1835.

22. Cheng ASH, Pegg TJ, Karamitsos TD, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 3-tesla for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparison with 1.5-tesla. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49:2440–2449.

23. Plein S, Bloomer TN, Ridgway JP, Jones TR, Bainbridge GJ, Sivananthan MU. Steady state free precession magnetic resonance imaging of the heart: comparison with segmented k-space gradient-echo imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001; 14:230–236.