Format

Send to

Choose Destination
MAGMA. 2016 Oct;29(5):733-8. doi: 10.1007/s10334-016-0550-7. Epub 2016 Apr 2.

Coronary MR angiography at 3T: fat suppression versus water-fat separation.

Author information

1
Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, UK. maryam.nezafat@kcl.ac.uk.
2
Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. maryam.nezafat@kcl.ac.uk.
3
Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, UK.
4
Multidisciplinary Cardiovascular Research Centre and the Division of Cardiovascular and Diabetes Research, Leeds Institute for Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
5
Philips Research, Hamburg, Germany.
6
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Escuela de Ingeniería, Santiago, Chile.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To compare Dixon water-fat suppression with spectral pre-saturation with inversion recovery (SPIR) at 3T for coronary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and to demonstrate the feasibility of fat suppressed coronary MRA at 3T without administration of a contrast agent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Coronary MRA with Dixon water-fat separation or with SPIR fat suppression was compared on a 3T scanner equipped with a 32-channel cardiac receiver coil. Eight healthy volunteers were examined. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), right coronary artery (RCA), and left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery sharpness and length were measured and statistically compared. Two experienced cardiologists graded the visual image quality of reformatted Dixon and SPIR images (1: poor quality to 5: excellent quality).

RESULTS:

Coronary MRA images in healthy volunteers showed improved contrast with the Dixon technique compared to SPIR (CNR blood-fat: Dixon = 14.9 ± 2.9 and SPIR = 13.9 ± 2.1; p = 0.08, CNR blood-myocardium: Dixon = 10.2 ± 2.7 and SPIR = 9.11 ± 2.6; p = 0.1). The Dixon method led to similar fat suppression (fat SNR with Dixon: 2.1 ± 0.5 vs. SPIR: 2.4 ± 1.2, p = 0.3), but resulted in significantly increased SNR of blood (blood SNR with Dixon: 19.9 ± 4.5 vs. SPIR: 15.5 ± 3.1, p < 0.05). This means the residual fat signal is slightly lower with the Dixon compared to the SIPR technique (although not significant), while the SNR of blood is significantly higher with the Dixon technique. Vessel sharpness of the RCA was similar for Dixon and SPIR (57 ± 7 % vs. 56 ± 9 %, p = 0.2), while the RCA visualized vessel length was increased compared to SPIR fat suppression (107 ± 21 vs. 101 ± 21 mm, p < 0.001). For the LAD, vessel sharpness (50 ± 13 % vs. 50 ± 7 %, p = 0.4) and vessel length (92 ± 46 vs. 90 ± 47 mm, p = 0.4) were similar with both techniques. Consequently, the Dixon technique resulted in an improved visual score of the coronary arteries in the water fat separated images of healthy subjects (RCA: 4.6 ± 0.5 vs. 4.1 ± 0.7, p = 0.01, LAD: 4.1 ± 0.7 vs. 3.5 ± 0.8, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS:

Dixon water-fat separation can significantly improve coronary artery image quality without the use of a contrast agent at 3T.

KEYWORDS:

Coronary magnetic resonance angiography; Dixon; SPIR; Vessel length; Vessel sharpness

PMID:
27038934
PMCID:
PMC5033991
DOI:
10.1007/s10334-016-0550-7
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Conflict of interest statement

There is no conflict of interest of any of the authors. Ethical approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center