Premium
Abdominal phase‐contrast MR angiography: Breath‐Hold versus non‐breath‐hold techniques
Author(s) -
Hara Amy K.,
Burkart David J.,
Johnson C. Daniel,
Ehman Richard L.,
Ilstrup Duane M.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.1880060119
Subject(s) - medicine , image quality , magnetic resonance imaging , radiology , nuclear medicine , magnetic resonance angiography , contrast (vision) , angiography , artificial intelligence , image (mathematics) , computer science
Breath‐hold magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is now replacing many non‐breath‐hold pulse sequences in the upper abdomen because of faster imaging times and improved image quality. The authors compared non‐breath‐hold cine phase‐contrast (PC) and breath hold 2D phase‐contrast (2DPC) magnetic resonance (MR) angiograms of the main portal vein (MPV) and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) in 12 volunteers. All angiograms were graded in overall image quality, vessel conspicuity, and signal‐to‐noise ratios (SNR). In the MPV MR angiograms, the breath‐hold 2DPC sequence produced better images than the non‐breath‐hold cine PC sequence as graded by overall image quality ( P =.016) and SNR ( P =.004). Conversely, in the SMA MR angiograms, the non‐breath‐hold cine PC sequence produced better images than the breath‐hold sequence in terms of overall image quality ( P =.008) and SNR ( P =.008). By reducing the most significant cause of image artifacts, (ie, using a breath‐hold 2DPC sequence to decrease respiratory misregistration of the MPV, and using a cardiac‐gated cine PC sequence to minimize pulsatile artifacts of the SMA), one can clearly optimize the quality of MR angiography.