Gain in Signal-to-Noise for First-Pass Contrast-Enhanced Abdominal MR Angiography at 3 Tesla Over Standard 1.5 Tesla: Prediction with a Computer Model

Academic Radiology

Volumn 14, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 795-803

  Merkle, Elmar Max ^a   Dale, Brian Marshall ^b   Barboriak, Daniel Paul ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b SIEMENS CORPORATE RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

3 Tesla; contrast agent; Magnetic resonance angiography

Indexed keywords

GADOBENATE DIMEGLUMINE; GADODIAMIDE; GADOFOSVESET; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE MEGLUMINE; GADOTERIDOL; GADOVERSETAMIDE;

ABDOMEN; ABDOMINAL ANGIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER MODEL; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIMULATION; STANDARD;

EID: 34250351895     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2007.03.007     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Hugg J., Rofsky N., Stokar S., et al. Clinical whole body MRI at 3.0 T-initial experience [abstract]. Proc Intl Mag Reson Med 10 (2002) 569
2. Sosna J., Rofsky N.M., Gaston S.M., et al. Determinations of prostate volume at 3-Tesla using an external phased array coil: comparison to pathologic specimens. Acad Radiol 10 (2003) 846-853
3. Katz-Brull R., Rofsky N.M., and Lenkinski R.E. Breathhold abdominal and thoracic proton MR spectroscopy at 3T. Magn Reson Med 50 (2003) 461-467
4. Gold G.E., Han E., Stainsby J., et al. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: relaxation times and image contrast. Am J Roentgenol 183 (2004) 343-351
5. Gold G.E., Suh B., Sawyer-Glover A., et al. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience. Am J Roentgenol 183 (2004) 1479-1486
6. O'Regan D.P., Fitzgerald J., Allsop J., et al. A comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Br J Radiol 78 (2005) 894-898
7. Martin D.R., Friel H.T., Danrad R., et al. Approach to abdominal imaging at 1.5 Tesla and optimization at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 13 (2005) 241-254
8. Morakkabati-Spitz N., Gieseke J., Kuhl C., et al. 3.0-T high-field magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: preliminary experiences. Eur Radiol 15 (2005) 639-644
9. Merkle E.M., Dale B.M., and Paulson E.K. Abdominal MR imaging at 3.0 tesla. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 14 (2006) 17-26
10. Merkle E.M., Haugan P.A., Thomas J., et al. MR cholangiography: 3.0 Tesla versus 1.5 Tesla-a pilot study. Am J Roentgenol 186 (2006) 516-521
11. Edelstein W.A., Glover G.H., Hardy C.J., et al. The intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Med 3 (1986) 604-618
12. Bottomley P.A., Foster T.H., Argersinger R.E., et al. A review of normal tissue hydrogen NMR relaxation times and relaxation mechanisms from 1-100 MHz: dependence on tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, excision, and age. Med Phys 11 (1984) 425-448
13. de Bazelaire C.M., Duhamel G.D., Rofsky N.M., et al. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 230 (2004) 652-659
14. Stanisz G.J., Odrobina E.E., Pun J., et al. T(1), T(2) relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T. Magn Reson Med 54 (2005) 507-512
15. Rinck P.A., and Muller R.N. Field strength and dose dependence of contrast enhancement by gadolinium-based MR contrast agents. Eur Radiol 9 (1999) 998-1004
16. Weinmann H.J., Bauer H., Ebert W., et al. Comparative studies on the efficacy of MRI Contrast agents in MRA. Acad Radiol 9 Suppl 1 (2002) 135-136
17. Trattnig S., Ba-Ssalamah A., Noebauer-Humann I.M., et al. MR contrast agent at high-field MRI (3 Tesla). Top Magn Reson Imaging 4 (2003) 365-375
18. Lee T., Stainsby J.A., Hong J., et al. Blood relaxation properties at 3T-effects of blood oxygen saturation. Proc Intl Mag Reson Med 11 (2003) 131 (abstract)
19. Rohrer M., Bauer H., Mintorovitch J., et al. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 40 (2005) 715-724
20. Trattnig S., Pinker K., Ba-Ssalamah A., et al. The optimal use of contrast agents at high field MRI. Eur Radiol 16 (2006) 1280-1287
21. Haacke E.M., Brown R.W., and Thompson M.R. Magnetic resonance imaging-physical principles and sequence design (1999), John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY 340, 455
22. Bae K.T., Heiken J.P., and Brink J.A. Aortic and hepatic contrast medium enhancement at CT. Part I. Prediction with a computer model. Radiology 207 (1998) 647-655
23. Milnor W.R. Cardiovascular physiology (1990), Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
24. Wade O.L., and Bishop J.M. Cardiac output and regional blood flow (1962), Davis, Philadelphia, Pa
25. Corot C., Violas X., Robert P., et al. Comparison of different types of blood pool agents (P792, MS325, USPIO) in a rabbit MR angiography-like protocol. Invest Radiol 38 (2003) 311-319
26. Hany T.F., Debatin J.F., Leung D.A., et al. Evaluation of the aortoiliac and renal arteries: comparison of breath-hold, contrast-enhanced, three-dimensional MR angiography with conventional catheter angiography. Radiology 204 (1997) 357-362
27. Hany T.F., Leung D.A., Pfammatter T., et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the renal arteries. Original investigation. Invest Radiol 33 (1998) 653-659
28. Venkataraman S., Semelka R.C., Weeks S., et al. Assessment of aorto-iliac disease with magnetic resonance angiography using arterial phase 3-D gradient-echo and interstitial phase 2-D fat-suppressed spoiled gradient-echo sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging 17 (2003) 43-53
29. Prince M.R. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography: theory and optimization. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 6 (1998) 257-267
30. Schaefer P.J., Boudghene F.P., Brambs H.J., et al. Abdominal and iliac arterial stenoses: comparative double-blinded randomized study of diagnostic accuracy of 3D MR angiography with gadodiamide or gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 238 (2006) 827-840
31. Rapp J.H., Wolff S.D., Quinn S.F., et al. Aortoiliac occlusive disease in patients with known or suspected peripheral vascular disease: safety and efficacy of gadofosveset-enhanced MR angiography-multicenter comparative phase III study. Radiology 236 (2005) 71-78
32. Prince M.R., and Meaney J.F.M. Expanding role of MR angiography in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 16 Suppl 2 (2006) B3-B8
33. Edelman R.R., Salanitri G., Brand R., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 41 (2006) 175-180
34. Riederer S.J., Bernstein M.A., Breen J.F., et al. Three-dimensional contrast-enhanced MR angiography with real-time fluoroscopic triggering: design specifications and technical reliability in 330 patient studies. Radiology 215 (2000) 584-593
35. Allkemper T., Heindel W., Koojman H., et al. Effect of field strengths on magnetic resonance angiography. Comparison of an ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide blood-pool contrast agent and gadobenate dimeglumine in rabbits at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 41 (2006) 97-104
36. Runge V.M., Biswas J., Wintersperger B.J., et al. The efficacy of gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) at 3 Tesla in brain magnetic resonance imaging. Comparison to 1.5 Tesla and a Standard Gadolinium Chelate Using a Rat Brain Tumor Model. Invest Radiol 41 (2006) 244-248
37. Hartmann M., Wiethoff A.J., Hentrich H.R., et al. Initial imaging recommendations for Vasovist angiography. Eur Radiol 16 Suppl 2 (2006) B15-B23
38. Nael K., Laub G., and Finn J.P. Three-dimensional contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the thoraco-abdominal vessels. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 13 (2005) 359-380