Peripheral Non-Contrast MR Angiography Using FBI: Scan Time and T2 Blurring Reduction with 2D Parallel Imaging.

IF 2.7 Q3 IMAGING SCIENCE & PHOTOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY Journal of Imaging Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI:10.3390/jimaging10090223
Won C Bae, Lewis Hahn, Vadim Malis, Anya Mesa, Diana Vucevic, Mitsue Miyazaki
{"title":"Peripheral Non-Contrast MR Angiography Using FBI: Scan Time and T2 Blurring Reduction with 2D Parallel Imaging.","authors":"Won C Bae, Lewis Hahn, Vadim Malis, Anya Mesa, Diana Vucevic, Mitsue Miyazaki","doi":"10.3390/jimaging10090223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Non-contrast magnetic resonance angiography (NC-MRA), including fresh blood imaging (FBI), is a suitable choice for evaluating patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). We evaluated standard FBI (sFBI) and centric ky-kz FBI (cFBI) acquisitions, using 1D and 2D parallel imaging factors (PIFs) to assess the trade-off between scan time and image quality due to blurring. The bilateral legs of four volunteers (mean age 33 years, two females) were imaged in the coronal plane using a body array coil with a posterior spine coil. Two types of sFBI and cFBI sequences with 1D PIF factor 5 in the phase encode (PE) direction (in-plane) and 2D PIF 3 (PE) × 2 (slice encode (SE)) (in-plane, through-slice) were studied. Image quality was evaluated by a radiologist, the vessel's signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured, and major vessel width was measured on the coronal maximum intensity projection (MIP) and 80-degree MIP. Results showed significant time reductions from 184 to 206 s on average when using sFBI down to 98 to 162 s when using cFBI (<i>p</i> = 0.003). Similar SNRs (averaging 200 to 370 across all sequences and PIF) and CNRs (averaging 190 to 360) for all techniques (<i>p</i> > 0.08) were found. There was no significant difference in the image quality (averaging 4.0 to 4.5; <i>p</i> > 0.2) or vessel width (averaging 4.1 to 4.9 mm; <i>p</i> > 0.1) on coronal MIP due to sequence or PIF. However, vessel width measured using 80-degree MIP demonstrated a significantly wider vessel in cFBI (5.6 to 6.8 mm) compared to sFBI (4.5 to 4.7 mm) (<i>p</i> = 0.022), and in 1D (4.7 to 6.8 mm) compared to 2D (4.5 to 5.6 mm) (<i>p</i> < 0.05) PIF. This demonstrated a trade-off in T2 blurring between 1D and 2D PIF: 1D using a PIF of 5 shortened the acquisition window, resulting in sharper arterial blood vessels in coronal images but significant blur in the 80-degree MIP. Two-dimensional PIF for cFBI provided a good balance between shorter scan time (relative to sFBI) and good sharpness in both in- and through-plane, while no benefit of 2D PIF was seen for sFBI. In conclusion, this study demonstrated the usefulness of FBI-based techniques for peripheral artery imaging and underscored the need to strike a balance between scan time and image quality in different planes through the use of 2D parallel imaging.</p>","PeriodicalId":37035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Imaging","volume":"10 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11432976/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging10090223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMAGING SCIENCE & PHOTOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Non-contrast magnetic resonance angiography (NC-MRA), including fresh blood imaging (FBI), is a suitable choice for evaluating patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). We evaluated standard FBI (sFBI) and centric ky-kz FBI (cFBI) acquisitions, using 1D and 2D parallel imaging factors (PIFs) to assess the trade-off between scan time and image quality due to blurring. The bilateral legs of four volunteers (mean age 33 years, two females) were imaged in the coronal plane using a body array coil with a posterior spine coil. Two types of sFBI and cFBI sequences with 1D PIF factor 5 in the phase encode (PE) direction (in-plane) and 2D PIF 3 (PE) × 2 (slice encode (SE)) (in-plane, through-slice) were studied. Image quality was evaluated by a radiologist, the vessel's signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured, and major vessel width was measured on the coronal maximum intensity projection (MIP) and 80-degree MIP. Results showed significant time reductions from 184 to 206 s on average when using sFBI down to 98 to 162 s when using cFBI (p = 0.003). Similar SNRs (averaging 200 to 370 across all sequences and PIF) and CNRs (averaging 190 to 360) for all techniques (p > 0.08) were found. There was no significant difference in the image quality (averaging 4.0 to 4.5; p > 0.2) or vessel width (averaging 4.1 to 4.9 mm; p > 0.1) on coronal MIP due to sequence or PIF. However, vessel width measured using 80-degree MIP demonstrated a significantly wider vessel in cFBI (5.6 to 6.8 mm) compared to sFBI (4.5 to 4.7 mm) (p = 0.022), and in 1D (4.7 to 6.8 mm) compared to 2D (4.5 to 5.6 mm) (p < 0.05) PIF. This demonstrated a trade-off in T2 blurring between 1D and 2D PIF: 1D using a PIF of 5 shortened the acquisition window, resulting in sharper arterial blood vessels in coronal images but significant blur in the 80-degree MIP. Two-dimensional PIF for cFBI provided a good balance between shorter scan time (relative to sFBI) and good sharpness in both in- and through-plane, while no benefit of 2D PIF was seen for sFBI. In conclusion, this study demonstrated the usefulness of FBI-based techniques for peripheral artery imaging and underscored the need to strike a balance between scan time and image quality in different planes through the use of 2D parallel imaging.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用 FBI 进行外周非对比 MR 血管造影:利用二维平行成像减少扫描时间和 T2 模糊。
非对比磁共振血管成像(NC-MRA),包括新鲜血液成像(FBI),是评估外周动脉疾病(PAD)患者的合适选择。我们使用一维和二维平行成像因子(PIF)评估了标准联邦调查局(sFBI)和中心 ky-kz 联邦调查局(cFBI)采集,以评估扫描时间与模糊导致的图像质量之间的权衡。使用带脊柱后部线圈的体阵线圈对四名志愿者(平均年龄 33 岁,两名女性)的双侧腿部进行冠状面成像。研究了相位编码(PE)方向(平面内)的 1D PIF 因子 5 和 2D PIF 3(PE)×2(切片编码(SE))(平面内,穿透切片)的两种 sFBI 和 cFBI 序列。放射科医生对图像质量进行了评估,测量了血管的信噪比(SNR)和对比信噪比(CNR),并在冠状最大强度投影(MIP)和 80 度 MIP 上测量了主要血管的宽度。结果显示,使用 sFBI 时的平均时间从 184 秒到 206 秒大幅缩短到使用 cFBI 时的 98 秒到 162 秒(p = 0.003)。所有技术的信噪比(在所有序列和 PIF 中平均为 200 至 370)和 CNR(平均为 190 至 360)相似(p > 0.08)。冠状 MIP 的图像质量(平均 4.0 至 4.5;p > 0.2)或血管宽度(平均 4.1 至 4.9 毫米;p > 0.1)因序列或 PIF 而无明显差异。然而,使用 80 度 MIP 测量的血管宽度显示,与 sFBI(4.5 至 4.7 毫米)(p = 0.022)相比,cFBI(5.6 至 6.8 毫米)的血管明显更宽;与二维(4.5 至 5.6 毫米)(p < 0.05)PIF 相比,一维(4.7 至 6.8 毫米)的血管明显更宽(p < 0.05)。这表明一维和二维 PIF 在 T2 模糊方面有所权衡:一维 PIF 为 5 时缩短了采集窗口,从而使冠状图像中的动脉血管更加清晰,但 80 度 MIP 则明显模糊。用于 cFBI 的二维 PIF 很好地平衡了扫描时间(相对于 sFBI)的缩短和平面内及通透平面的清晰度,而用于 sFBI 的二维 PIF 则没有任何益处。总之,这项研究证明了基于 FBI 的外周动脉成像技术的实用性,并强调了通过使用二维平行成像在不同平面的扫描时间和图像质量之间取得平衡的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Imaging
Journal of Imaging Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
303
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Accelerating Point Cloud Computation via Memory in Embedded Structured Light Cameras. Classification of the Surrounding Rock Based on Image Processing Analysis and Transfer Learning. MDF2Former: Multi-Scale Dual-Domain Feature Fusion Transformer for Hyperspectral Image Classification of Bacteria in Murine Wounds. Print Quality Assessment of QR Code Elements Achieved by the Digital Thermal Transfer Process. Automated Compactness Quantitative Metrics for Wrist Bone on Conventional Radiography in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Clinical Evaluation Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1