Direct comparison of 3D spiral vs. Cartesian gradient-echo coronary magnetic resonance angiography

✍ Scribed by Peter Börnert; Matthias Stuber; René M. Botnar; Kraig V. Kissinger; Peter Koken; Elmar Spuentrup; Warren J. Manning

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2001
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 243 KB
• Volume: 46
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0740-3194
• DOI: 10.1002/mrm.1258

✦ Synopsis

Abstract

While 3D thin‐slab coronary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) has traditionally been performed using a Cartesian acquisition scheme, spiral k‐space data acquisition offers several potential advantages. However, these strategies have not been directly compared in the same subjects using similar methodologies. Thus, in the present study a comparison was made between 3D coronary MRA using Cartesian segmented k‐space gradient‐echo and spiral k‐space data acquisition schemes. In both approaches the same spatial resolution was used and data were acquired during free breathing using navigator gating and prospective slice tracking. Magnetization preparation (T~2~ preparation and fat suppression) was applied to increase the contrast. For spiral imaging two different examinations were performed, using one or two spiral interleaves, during each R‐R interval. Spiral acquisitions were found to be superior to the Cartesian scheme with respect to the signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) and contrast‐to‐noise‐ratio (CNR) (both P < 0.001) and image quality. The single spiral per R‐R interval acquisition had the same total scan duration as the Cartesian acquisition, but the single spiral had the best image quality and a 2.6‐fold increase in SNR. The double‐interleaf spiral approach showed a 50% reduction in scanning time, a 1.8‐fold increase in SNR, and similar image quality when compared to the standard Cartesian approach. Spiral 3D coronary MRA appears to be preferable to the Cartesian scheme. The increase in SNR may be “traded” for either shorter scanning times using multiple consecutive spiral interleaves, or for enhanced spatial resolution. Magn Reson Med 46:789–794, 2001. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.