3.0 T vs. 1.5 T MR angiography:: In vitro comparison of intravascular stent artifacts

被引:27
|
作者
Wall, A [1 ]
Kugel, H [1 ]
Bachman, R [1 ]
Matuszewski, L [1 ]
Krämer, S [1 ]
Heindel, W [1 ]
Maintz, D [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Munster, Dept Clin Radiol, D-48129 Munster, Germany
关键词
magnetic resonance angiography; high-field MR; stents; artifacts; 3 T vascular;
D O I
10.1002/jmri.20445
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate the signal characteristics of different iliac artery stents in MR angiography (MRA) at 3 T in comparison with 1.5 T. Materials and Methods: Sixteen iliac artery stents were implanted in plastic tubes filled with a solution of Gd-DTPA and imaged at 3 T and 1.5 T using a T1-weighted 3D spoiled gradient-echo sequence. Image analysis included a subjective assessment of artifact characteristics, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) measurements in stented and unstented vessel parts, and quantitative measurements of total artifact size. Results: The pattern of stent artifacts inside the stents evidently did not differ at 3 T and 1.5 T. The average total size of the artifact areas surrounding the stents was significantly larger at 3 T (P < 0.03). However. within the stented part of the vessel phantom, the signal of the lumen and its contrast to modeled surrounding tissue was significantly higher at the higher field. The mean SNR of the lumen increased from 95.5 at 1.5 T to 127.3 at 3 T, and the CNR of the vessel increased from 70.3 to 93. Conclusion: Assessment of the stent lumen in iliac artery stents in a phantom model is not compromised by imaging at 3 T compared to 1.5 T. The signal gain inside the stented part of the vessel lumen at higher field compensates for the higher degree of stent artifacts seen in stents made of steel or cobalt.
引用
收藏
页码:772 / 779
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Bilateral ce-MR angiography of the hands at 3.0 T and 1.5 T: intraindividual comparison of quantitative and qualitative image parameters in healthy volunteers
    Winterer, Jan Thorsten
    Moske-Eick, Olaf
    Markl, Michael
    Frydrychowicz, Alexander
    Bley, Thorsten Alexander
    Langer, Mathias
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2008, 18 (04) : 658 - 664
  • [22] Bilateral ce-MR angiography of the hands at 3.0 T and 1.5 T: intraindividual comparison of quantitative and qualitative image parameters in healthy volunteers
    Jan Thorsten Winterer
    Olaf Moske-Eick
    Michael Markl
    Alexander Frydrychowicz
    Thorsten Alexander Bley
    Mathias Langer
    European Radiology, 2008, 18 : 658 - 664
  • [23] Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease: 3.0-T versus 1.5-T MR Angiography Compared with Digital Subtraction Angiography
    van den Bosch, Harrie C. M.
    Westenberg, Jos J. M.
    Caris, Ralph
    Duijm, Lucien E. M.
    Tielbeek, Alexander V.
    Cuypers, Philip W. M.
    de Roos, Albert
    RADIOLOGY, 2013, 266 (01) : 337 - 346
  • [24] Cardiac MR tagging: Optimization of sequence parameters and comparison at 1.5 T and 3.0 T in a volunteer study
    Kramer, U
    Deshpande, V
    Fenchel, M
    Klumpp, B
    Laub, G
    Finn, JP
    Claussen, CD
    Miller, S
    ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2006, 178 (05): : 515 - 524
  • [25] Comparison of geometrical distortion of 1.5 T MR sim and 1.5 T MR linac
    Jensen, H.
    Bernchou, U.
    Bertelsen, A.
    Brink, C.
    Mahmood, F.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2019, 133 : S923 - S924
  • [26] Comparison of 1.5 and 3.0 T for Contrast-Enhanced Pulmonary Magnetic Resonance Angiography
    Londy, Frank Joseph
    Lowe, Suzan
    Stein, Paul D.
    Weg, John G.
    Eisner, Robert L.
    Leeper, Kenneth V.
    Woodard, Pamela K.
    Sostman, H. Dirk
    Jablonski, Kathleen A.
    Fowler, Sarah E.
    Hales, Charles A.
    Hull, Russell D.
    Gottschalk, Alexander
    Naidich, David P.
    Chenevert, Thomas L.
    CLINICAL AND APPLIED THROMBOSIS-HEMOSTASIS, 2012, 18 (02) : 134 - 139
  • [27] Fetal-placental MR angiography at 1.5 T and 3 T
    Qu, Feifei
    Sun, Taotao
    Marin-Concha, Julio
    Jaiman, Sunil
    Jiang, Ling
    Mody, Swati
    Hernandez-Andrade, Edgar
    Subramanian, Karthikeyan
    Qian, Zhaoxia
    Romero, Roberto
    Haacke, E. Mark
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2023, 102 : 133 - 140
  • [28] Functional MR imaging at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T: A practical review
    Voss, Henning U.
    Zevin, Jason. D.
    McCandliss, Bruce D.
    NEUROIMAGING CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2006, 16 (02) : 285 - +
  • [29] MR spectroscopy and spectroscopic imaging:: Comparing 3.0 T versus 1.5 T
    Dydak, Ulrike
    Schaer, Michael
    NEUROIMAGING CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2006, 16 (02) : 269 - +
  • [30] MR imaging of articular cartilage at 1.5T and 3.0T: Comparison of SPGR and SSFP sequences
    Kornaat, PR
    Reeder, SB
    Koo, S
    Brittain, JH
    Yu, H
    Andriacchi, TP
    Gold, GE
    OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE, 2005, 13 (04) : 338 - 344