Cardiac cine MRI: Comparison of 1.5 T, non-enhanced 3.0 T and blood pool enhanced 3.0 T imaging

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 65, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 80-85

  Gerretsen, S C ^a   Versluis, B ^a   Bekkers, S C A M ^a   Leiner, T ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

3.0 T; Balanced steady state free precession; Cardiac cine imaging; Comparative studies; Gadofosveset trisodium

Indexed keywords

BLOOD; CARDIOLOGY; IMAGE QUALITY; MEDICAL IMAGING; PATIENT TREATMENT; SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO;

BALANCED STEADY STATE FREE PRECESSION; CARDIAC CINE IMAGING; EJECTION FRACTION; GADOFOSVESET TRISODIUM;

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

GADOFOSVESET;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD; CINEANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HEART CYCLE; HEART EJECTION FRACTION; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CONTRAST MEDIA; GADOLINIUM; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, CINE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 37549043866     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.004     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Scheffler K., and Lehnhardt S. Principles and applications of balanced SSFP techniques. Eur Radiol 13 (2003) 2409-2418
2. Fonseca CG, Nael K, Weinmann H-J, Nyborg G, Laub G, Finn JP. Cardiac cine MRI at 3.0 T: initial experience with Gadomer-17 in a swine model. Proc ISMRM 2006:20.
3. Caravan P., Cloutier N.J., Greenfield M.T., et al. The interaction of MS-325 with human serum albumin and its effect on proton relaxation rates. J Am Chem Soc 124 (2002) 3152-3162
4. Parker D.L., and Haacke E.M. Signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise, and resolution. In: Potchen E.J., Haacke E.M., Siebert J.E., and Gottschalk A. (Eds). Magnetic resonance angiography: concepts and applications (1993), Mosby, St. Louis 56-79
5. Bolog N., Nanz D., and Weishaupt D. Muskuloskeletal MR imaging at 3.0 T: current status and future perspectives. Eur Radiol 16 (2006) 1298-1307
6. Frayne R., Goodyear B.G., Dickhoff P., Lauzon M.L., and Sevick R.J. Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T: challenges and advantages in clinical neurological imaging. Invest Radiol 38 (2003) 385-402
7. Kosior R.K., Wright C.J., Kosior J.C., et al. 3-Tesla versus 1.5-Tesla magnetic resonance diffusion and perfusion imaging in hyperacute ischemic stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis 24 (2007) 361-368
8. DeLano M.C., and DeMarco J.K. 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MR angiography of the head and neck. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 16 (2006) 321-341
9. Leiner T., de Vries M., Hoogeveen R., Vasbinder G.B., Lemaire E., and van Engelshoven J.M. Contrast-enhanced peripheral MR angiography at 3.0 T: initial experience with a whole-body scanner in healthy volunteers. J Magn Reson Imaging 17 (2003) 609-614
10. Rouvière O., Hartman R.P., and Lyonnet D. Prostate MR imaging at high-field strength: evolution or revolution?. Eur Radiol 16 (2006) 276-284
11. Michaely H.J., Kramer H., Oesingmann N., et al. Intraindividual comparison of MR-renal perfusion imaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Invest Radiol 42 (2007) 406-411
12. Araoz P.A., Glockner J.F., McGee K.P., et al. 3 Tesla MR imaging provides improved contrast in first-pass myocardial perfusion imaging over a range of gadolinium doses. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 7 (2005) 559-564
13. 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 17 (2007) 1829-1835
14. Laub G. Time-of-flight method of MR angiography. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 3 (1995) 391-398
15. Finn J.P., Nael K., Deshpande V., Ratib O., and Laub G. Cardiac MR imaging: state of the technology. Radiology 241 (2006) 338-354