Premium
Parallel acquisition techniques in cardiac cine magnetic resonance imaging using TrueFISP sequences: Comparison of image quality and artifacts
Author(s) -
Hunold Peter,
Maderwald Stefan,
Ladd Mark E.,
Jellus Vladimir,
Barkhausen Jörg
Publication year - 2004
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.20125
Subject(s) - image quality , magnetic resonance imaging , computer science , noise (video) , image noise , signal to noise ratio (imaging) , nuclear medicine , flip angle , artificial intelligence , image (mathematics) , medicine , radiology , telecommunications
Purpose To compare image quality, artifacts, and signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) in cardiac cine TrueFISP magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with and without parallel acquisition techniques (PAT). Materials and Methods MRI was performed in 16 subjects with a TrueFISP sequence (1.5 T; Magnetom Sonata, Siemens): TR, 3.0 msec; TE, 1.5 msec; flip angle (FA), 60°. Three axes were scanned without PAT (no PAT) and using the generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) and modified sensitivity encoding (mSENSE) reconstruction algorithms with an autocalibration mode to reduce scan time. A conventional spine array and a body flex array were used. Artifacts, image noise, and overall image quality were classified on a 4‐point scale by an observer blinded to the implemented technique; for quantitative comparison, SNR was measured. Results With a PAT factor of two, acquisition time could be reduced by 39%. No PAT did not show artifacts, and GRAPPA revealed fewer artifacts than mSENSE. PAT provided inferior‐quality scores concerning image noise and overall image quality. In quantitative measurements, GRAPPA and mSENSE (20.1 ± 6.2 and 15.6 ± 6.2, respectively) yielded lower SNR than no PAT (30.6 ± 20.1; P < 0.05) and P < 0.001). Conclusion Time savings in PAT are accompanied by artifacts and an increase in image noise. The GRAPPA algorithm was superior to mSENSE concerning image quality, noise, and SNR. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2004;20:506–511. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.