Academic Radiology
Volume 14, Issue 7 , Pages 795-803 , July 2007

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

  • Elmar Max Merkle, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Duke North, Room 1417, Erwin Road, Durham, NC 27710
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: E.M.M.
    • ,
  • Brian Marshall Dale, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Physics and IDEA, Siemens Medical Solutions, Inc, MR R&D Collaborations, Cary, NC.
    • ,
  • Daniel Paul Barboriak, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Duke North, Room 1417, Erwin Road, Durham, NC 27710

Received 6 December 2006 ,Accepted 13 March 2007.

References 

  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. 2002;10:569
  2. Sosna J, Rofsky NM, Gaston SM, et al. Determinations of prostate volume at 3-Tesla using an external phased array coil: comparison to pathologic specimens. Acad Radiol. 2003;10:846–853
  3. Katz-Brull R, Rofsky NM, Lenkinski RE. Breathhold abdominal and thoracic proton MR spectroscopy at 3T. Magn Reson Med. 2003;50:461–467
  4. Gold GE, Han E, Stainsby J, et al. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: relaxation times and image contrast. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:343–351
  5. Gold GE, Suh B, Sawyer-Glover A, et al. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1479–1486
  6. O’Regan DP, Fitzgerald J, Allsop J, et al. A comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Br J Radiol. 2005;78:894–898
  7. Martin DR, Friel HT, Danrad R, et al. Approach to abdominal imaging at 1.5 Tesla and optimization at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2005;13:241–254
  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. 2005;15:639–644
  9. Merkle EM, Dale BM, Paulson EK. Abdominal MR imaging at 3.0 tesla. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006;14:17–26
  10. Merkle EM, Haugan PA, Thomas J, et al. MR cholangiography: 3.0 Tesla versus 1.5 Tesla—a pilot study. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:516–521
  11. Edelstein WA, Glover GH, Hardy CJ, et al. The intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Med. 1986;3:604–618
  12. Bottomley PA, Foster TH, Argersinger RE, 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. 1984;11:425–448
  13. de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, et al. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology. 2004;230:652–659
  14. Stanisz GJ, Odrobina EE, Pun J, et al. T(1), T(2) relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T. Magn Reson Med. 2005;54:507–512
  15. Rinck PA, Muller RN. Field strength and dose dependence of contrast enhancement by gadolinium-based MR contrast agents. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:998–1004
  16. Weinmann HJ, Bauer H, Ebert W, et al. Comparative studies on the efficacy of MRI Contrast agents in MRA. Acad Radiol. 2002;9(Suppl 1):135–136
  17. Trattnig S, Ba-Ssalamah A, Noebauer-Humann IM, et al. MR contrast agent at high-field MRI (3 Tesla). Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;4:365–375
  18. Lee T, Stainsby JA, Hong J, et al. Blood relaxation properties at 3T—effects of blood oxygen saturation. Proc Intl Mag Reson Med. 2003;11:131;(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. 2005;40:715–724
  20. Trattnig S, Pinker K, Ba-Ssalamah A, et al. The optimal use of contrast agents at high field MRI. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1280–1287
  21. Haacke EM, Brown RW, Thompson MR. Magnetic resonance imaging—physical principles and sequence design. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1999;340, 455
  22. Bae KT, Heiken JP, Brink JA. Aortic and hepatic contrast medium enhancement at CT (Part I. Prediction with a computer model). Radiology. 1998;207:647–655
  23. Milnor WR. Cardiovascular physiology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1990;
  24. Wade OL, Bishop JM. Cardiac output and regional blood flow. Philadelphia, Pa: Davis; 1962;
  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. 2003;38:311–319
  26. Hany TF, Debatin JF, Leung DA, et al. Evaluation of the aortoiliac and renal arteries: comparison of breath-hold, contrast-enhanced, three-dimensional MR angiography with conventional catheter angiography. Radiology. 1997;204:357–362
  27. Hany TF, Leung DA, Pfammatter T, et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the renal arteries (Original investigation). Invest Radiol. 1998;33:653–659
  28. Venkataraman S, Semelka RC, 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. 2003;17:43–53
  29. Prince MR. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography: theory and optimization. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1998;6:257–267
  30. Schaefer PJ, Boudghene FP, Brambs HJ, 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. 2006;238:827–840
  31. Rapp JH, Wolff SD, Quinn SF, 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. 2005;236:71–78
  32. Prince MR, Meaney JFM. Expanding role of MR angiography in clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(Suppl 2):B3–B8
  33. Edelman RR, Salanitri G, Brand R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:175–180
  34. Riederer SJ, Bernstein MA, Breen JF, et al. Three-dimensional contrast-enhanced MR angiography with real-time fluoroscopic triggering: design specifications and technical reliability in 330 patient studies. Radiology. 2000;215:584–593
  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. 2006;41:97–104
  36. Runge VM, Biswas J, Wintersperger BJ, 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. 2006;41:244–248
  37. Hartmann M, Wiethoff AJ, Hentrich HR, et al. Initial imaging recommendations for Vasovist angiography. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(Suppl 2):B15–B23
  38. Nael K, Laub G, Finn JP. Three-dimensional contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the thoraco-abdominal vessels. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2005;13:359–380

PII: S1076-6332(07)00144-4

doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2007.03.007

Academic Radiology
Volume 14, Issue 7 , Pages 795-803 , July 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution