Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRA of the aorta using a Golden-angle RAdial Sparse Parallel (GRASP) sequence: comparison with conventional time-resolved cartesian MRA (TWIST)

Abstract

Purpose To compare the application of two contrast-enhanced time-resolved magnetic resonance angiography sequences on an aortic disease patient cohort: the conventional Cartesian-sampling-based, Time-resolved angiography With Interleaved Stochastic Trajectories (TWIST) sequence, and the radial-sampling-based Golden-angle RAdial Sparse Parallel (GRASP) sequence. TWIST is highly sensitive to patient movement, which can lead to blurring and reduced sharpness of vascular structures, particularly in dynamic regions like the aorta. Such motion artifacts can compromise diagnostic accuracy. Radial-sampling-based techniques are less sensitive to motion than cartesian sampling and are expected to improve the image quality in body parts subjected to motion. Methods 30 patients (60.9 ± 16.1y.o.) with various aortic diseases underwent a 1.5T magnetic resonance angiography examination. Assessment of image quality in the ascending aorta (AA), descending aorta (DA), and abdominal aorta (AbA) on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = excellent, 4 = non-diagnostic) as well as max. aortic diameters (Dmax) were performed. T-test and multilevel mixed-effect proportional-odds models were used for the image analysis. Results GRASP offered superior depiction of vascular structures in terms of vascular contrast for qualitative analysis (TWIST, reader 1: 1.6 ± 0.5; reader 2: 1.9 ± 0.4; reader 3: 1.1 ± 0.4; GRASP, reader 1: 1.5 ± 0.5; reader 2: 1.4 ± 0.5; reader 3: 1.0 ± 0.2) and vessel sharpness for qualitative (TWIST, reader 1: 1.9 ± 0.6; reader 2: 1.6 ± 0.6; reader 3: 2.0 ± 0.3; GRASP, reader 1: 1.4 ± 0.6; reader 2: 1.2 ± 0.4; reader 3: 1.3 ± 0.6) and quantitative analysis (TWIST, AA = 0.12 ± 0.04, DA = 0.12 ± 0.03, AbA = 0.11 ± 0.03; GRASP, AA = 0.20 ± 0.05, DA = 0.22 ± 0.06, AbA=0.20 ± 0.05). Streaking artefacts of GRASP were more visible compared to TWIST (TWIST, reader 1: 2.2 ± 0.6; reader 2: 1.9 ± 0.3; reader 3: 2.0 ± 0.5; GRASP, reader 1: 2.6 ± 0.6; reader 2: 2.3 ± 0.5; reader 3: 2.8 ± 0.6). Aortic Dmax comparison among the sequence showed no clinical relevance. Conclusion GRASP outperformed TWIST in SNR, vessel sharpness, and reduction in image blurring; streaking artefacts were stronger with GRASP, but did not affect diagnostic image quality.