Intracranial contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance venography with 6.4‐fold sensitivity encoding at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla

Abstract

Purpose: To prospectively compare vessel conspicuity and diagnostic image quality between three-dimensional intracranial contrast-enhanced MR venography acquired at 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3.0T, with 6.4-fold sensitivity encoding. Materials and Methods:Ten healthy volunteers were imaged on 1.5T and 3.0T MR scanners using eight-element head coil arrays. The intracranial venous vasculature was divided into five groups for evaluation based on vessel size and anatomical location. Two radiologists independently assessed vessel conspicuity, level of artifacts, and diagnostic image quality. Informed consent was obtained, and the study was approved by the institutional review board. Results:With the exception of large cerebral sinuses where 1.5T and 3.0T results were rated as equivalent, 3.0T images demonstrated superior vessel continuity, sharpness, and signal contrast to background tissue than 1.5T for all other intracranial venous vasculature (P Ͻ 0.01). No statistical significance in overall image quality was found between 1.5T and 3.0T venograms, and all data sets were deemed sufficient for diagnostic interpretation.Conclusion: Whole brain contrast-enhanced venography with 6.4-fold sensitivity encoding is robust and has the potential to become the method of choice for fast visualization of the intracranial venous vasculature. At 3.0T, demonstration of small cerebral vessels is superior to 1.5T.

A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research

“…Most studies [10,20,35,43], mostly of intracranial aneurysms, reported superior image quality at 3 T, but with little effect on diagnostic accuracy [13,14,46]; for example, visualisation of small terminal arterial branches [13,16,23,47], pathological vessels in moyamoya disease [48], intracranial aneurysms [14], residual neck in treated aneurysms [27,49], and vascular supply of AVMs [42] was better at 3 T. Others found no difference in aneurysm diagnosis, characterisation or recurrence detection between 1.5 and 3 T despite differences in image quality [38,47]. There was no difference in MR venography between the two field strengths [46,50].…”

“…There was no difference in MR venography between the two field strengths [46,50]. Artefacts were virtually all more pronounced at 3 T [13,23,38,46], but, with a few exceptions [38], they had little effect on diagnosis.…”

Improved least squares MR image reconstruction using estimates of k‐Space data consistency

“…These techniques allow shorter data collection periods without dramatic modifications to the acquisition resulting in more consistent data for images at a given resolution. As an example, shortening the acquisition time using parallel imaging results in images with both less blurring and better vessel conspicuity in contrast‐enhanced venography using conventional extracellular gadolinium‐based contrast agents (6). However, even with parallel imaging and advanced reconstruction techniques, many applications still require imaging times much longer than potential signal variations.…”

3D high temporal and spatial resolution contrast‐enhanced MR angiography of the whole brain

“…In a study of nontime‐resolved CE‐MRA of the brain we have shown that for 2D SENSE accelerations as high as 5.2 at 3.0T, 75% of the g‐factors were no larger than 2.08 (fig. 5 and table 3 of58. Moreover, 2D SENSE g‐factors are highly consistent from subject‐to‐subject (59).…”