Premium
Improving quality of arterial spin labeling MR imaging at 3 tesla with a 32‐channel coil and parallel imaging
Author(s) -
Ferré JeanChristophe,
Petr Jan,
Bannier Elise,
Barillot Christian,
Gauvrit JeanYves
Publication year - 2012
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.23586
Subject(s) - electromagnetic coil , image quality , artifact (error) , signal to noise ratio (imaging) , noise (video) , nuclear medicine , fast spin echo , magnetic resonance imaging , nuclear magnetic resonance , medicine , physics , computer science , optics , radiology , image (mathematics) , artificial intelligence , quantum mechanics
Purpose: To compare 12‐channel and 32‐channel phased‐array coils and to determine the optimal parallel imaging (PI) technique and factor for brain perfusion imaging using Pulsed Arterial Spin labeling (PASL) at 3 Tesla (T). Materials and Methods: Twenty‐seven healthy volunteers underwent 10 different PASL perfusion PICORE Q2TIPS scans at 3T using 12‐channel and 32‐channel coils without PI and with GRAPPA or mSENSE using factor 2. PI with factor 3 and 4 were used only with the 32‐channel coil. Visual quality was assessed using four parameters. Quantitative analyses were performed using temporal noise, contrast‐to‐noise and signal‐to‐noise ratios (CNR, SNR). Results: Compared with 12‐channel acquisition, the scores for 32‐channel acquisition were significantly higher for overall visual quality, lower for noise and higher for SNR and CNR. With the 32‐channel coil, artifact compromise achieved the best score with PI factor 2. Noise increased, SNR and CNR decreased with PI factor. However mSENSE 2 scores were not always significantly different from acquisition without PI. Conclusion: For PASL at 3T, the 32‐channel coil at 3T provided better quality than the 12‐channel coil. With the 32‐channel coil, mSENSE 2 seemed to offer the best compromise for decreasing artifacts without significantly reducing SNR, CNR. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2012;35:1233‐1239. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.