Advertisement

Open 1.0-T versus closed 1.5-T cardiac MR: Image quality assessment

      Highlights

      • Even if open MR has a lower magnetic field compared to closed-bore MR, subjective image quality assessment does not favor one type of MR over the other.
      • When severe obesity or claustrophobia do not allow to perform cardiac MR on closed magnet, open cardiac MR provide a helpful alternative.
      • The performance of open cardiac MR appears substantially comparable to that of closed-bore MR in terms of diagnostic potential of images.

      Abstract

      Purpose

      The aim of this paper was to compare the open 1-T (O-1T) versus the closed 1.5-T (C-1.5T) cardiac magnetic resonance (MR).

      Patients/methods

      The MR examinations of two concurrent cohorts (each including 100 subjects) of patients with suspected or known cardiac disease were reviewed. Such examinations were obtained using O-1T or C-1.5T MRI. The bright-blood cine, T1-weighted (T1), T2-weighed short-tau inversion recovery (T2-STIR), late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) sequences were performed. Signal-to-noise ratio of blood (SNRb) or myocardium (SNRm), and contrast-to-noise ratio of myocardium (CNRm) were calculated. Subjective image quality (SIQ) of each sequence was graded as 0 = poor, 1 = intermediate, or 2 = optimal. Each examination was considered as diagnostic when the report answered the clinical question.

      Results

      C-1.5T was better than O-1T on cine for SNRb(median 172 versus 452), SNRm(71 versus 160) and CNRm (107 versus 265) and on T2-STIR for SNRb(10 versus 29), SNRm(74 versus 261) and CNRm(−67 versus −233)(P < 0.001). On LGE, SNRm was higher with O-1T than for C-1.5T (312 versus 79, P < 0.001) while CNR was lower (158 versus 389; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found for SNRb on LGE and both SNRm and CNRm on T1 (P ≥ 0.215). SIQ of O-1T was not significantly different from that of C-1.5T for both R1 and R2 for cine, T1, and LGE (P ≥ 0.157); for T2-STIR, SIQ of O-1T was significantly lower (P = 0.003). R1-R2 concordance was almost perfect (κ = 0.816–0.894), and all examinations were diagnostic.

      Conclusion

      Even though quantitative measurements mostly favored C-1.5T, the SIQ of O-1T was not significantly different for any sequence, with the only exception of T2-STIR.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Cook S.C.
        • Raman S.V.
        Multidetector computed tomography in the adolescent and young adult with congenital heart disease.
        J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2008; 2: 36-49
        • Di Leo G.
        • D'Angelo I.D.
        • Alì M.
        • et al.
        Intra- and inter-reader reproducibility of blood flow measurements on the ascending aorta and pulmonary artery using cardiac magnetic resonance.
        Radiol Med. 2017; 122: 179-185
        • Francone M.
        • Di Cesare E.
        • Cademartiri F.
        • et al.
        Italian registry of cardiac magnetic resonance.
        Eur J Radiol. 2014; 83: e15-e22
        • Di Leo G.
        • Fisci E.
        • Secchi F.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance angiography for detection of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Eur Radiol. 2016; 26: 3706-3718
        • Gerber T.C.
        • Carr J.J.
        • Arai A.E.
        • et al.
        Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on cardiac imaging of the council on clinical cardiology and committee on cardiovascular imaging and intervention of the council on cardiovascular radiology and intervention.
        Circulation. 2009; 119: 1056-1065
        • Meléndez J.C.
        • McCrank E.
        Anxiety-related reactions associated with magnetic resonance imaging examinations.
        JAMA. 1993; 270: 745-747
        • de Bucourt M.
        • Streitparth F.
        • Wonneberger U.
        • Rump J.
        • Teichgräber U.
        Obese patients in an open MRI at 1.0 Tesla: image quality, diagnostic impact and feasibility.
        Eur Radiol. 2011; 21: 1004-1015
        • Shah R.V.
        • Heydari B.
        • Coelho-Filho O.
        • et al.
        Vasodilator stress perfusion CMR imaging is feasible and prognostic in obese patients.
        JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014; 7: 462-472
        • Törnqvist E.
        • Månsson Å.
        • Hallström I.
        Children having magnetic resonance imaging.
        J Child Heal Care. 2015; 19: 359-369
        • Bangard C.
        • Paszek J.
        • Berg F.
        • et al.
        MR imaging of claustrophobic patients in an open 1.0T scanner: motion artifacts and patient acceptability compared with closed bore magnets.
        Eur J Radiol. 2007; 64: 152-157
        • Gutberlet M.
        • Schwinge K.
        • Freyhardt P.
        • et al.
        Influence of high magnetic field strengths and parallel acquisition strategies on image quality in cardiac 2D CINE magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of 1.5 T vs. 3.0 T.
        Eur Radiol. 2005; 15: 1586-1597
        • Gutberlet M.
        • Noeske R.
        • Schwinge K.
        • Freyhardt P.
        • Felix R.
        • Niendorf T.
        Comprehensive cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla: feasibility and implications for clinical applications.
        Invest Radiol. 2006; 41: 154-167
        • Klein H.-M.
        • Meyners W.
        • Neeb B.
        • Labenz J.
        • Truümmler K.-H.
        Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging using an open 0.35 T system.
        J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007; 31: 430-434
        • Northrup B.E.
        • McCommis K.S.
        • Zhang H.
        • et al.
        Resting myocardial perfusion quantification with CMR arterial spin labeling at 1.5 T and 3.0 T.
        J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2008; 10: 53
        • Hart H.
        • Bottomley P.
        • Edelstein W.
        • et al.
        Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging: contrast-to-noise ratio as a function of strength of magnetic field.
        Am J Roentgenol. 1983; 141: 1195-1201
        • Landis J.R.
        • Koch G.G.
        The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
        Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174
        • Darty S.N.
        • O'Neal J.
        • Wesley-Farrington D.
        • Davis A.D.
        • Link K.M.
        • Hundley G.
        Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.
        Prog Cardiovasc Nurs. 2004; 19: 60-67
        • Yang L.
        • Colditz G.A.
        Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 2007–2012.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175: 1412
        • Michel S.C.A.
        • Rake A.
        • Götzmann L.
        • et al.
        Pelvimetry and patient acceptability compared between open 0.5-T and closed 1.5-T MR systems.
        Eur Radiol. 2002; 12: 2898-2905