Highly-accelerated volumetric brain examination using optimized wave-CAIPI encoding.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Artifacts
Brain
/ diagnostic imaging
Brain Diseases
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Organ Size
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
Single-Blind Method
Young Adult
Journal
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI
ISSN: 1522-2586
Titre abrégé: J Magn Reson Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9105850
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2019
09 2019
Historique:
received:
09
08
2018
revised:
17
01
2019
accepted:
17
01
2019
pubmed:
9
2
2019
medline:
22
10
2020
entrez:
9
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Rapid volumetric imaging protocols could better utilize limited scanner resources. To develop and validate an optimized 6-minute high-resolution volumetric brain MRI examination using Wave-CAIPI encoding. Prospective. Ten healthy subjects and 20 patients with a variety of intracranial pathologies. At 3 T, MPRAGE, T Extensive simulations were performed to optimize the Wave-CAIPI protocol and minimize both g-factor noise amplification and potential T A noninferiority test was used to test whether the diagnostic quality of Wave-CAIPI was noninferior to the GRAPPA acquisition, with a 15% noninferiority margin. Among all sequences, Wave-CAIPI achieved negligible g-factor noise amplification (g The proposed volumetric brain exam retained comparable image quality when compared with the much longer conventional protocol. 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:961-974.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Rapid volumetric imaging protocols could better utilize limited scanner resources.
PURPOSE
To develop and validate an optimized 6-minute high-resolution volumetric brain MRI examination using Wave-CAIPI encoding.
STUDY TYPE
Prospective.
POPULATION/SUBJECTS
Ten healthy subjects and 20 patients with a variety of intracranial pathologies.
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE
At 3 T, MPRAGE, T
ASSESSMENT
Extensive simulations were performed to optimize the Wave-CAIPI protocol and minimize both g-factor noise amplification and potential T
STATISTICAL TEST
A noninferiority test was used to test whether the diagnostic quality of Wave-CAIPI was noninferior to the GRAPPA acquisition, with a 15% noninferiority margin.
RESULTS
Among all sequences, Wave-CAIPI achieved negligible g-factor noise amplification (g
DATA CONCLUSION
The proposed volumetric brain exam retained comparable image quality when compared with the much longer conventional protocol.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:961-974.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30734388
doi: 10.1002/jmri.26678
pmc: PMC6687581
mid: NIHMS1017854
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
961-974Subventions
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R01 MH116173
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : P41 EB015896
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : U01 EB025162
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : R01 EB019437
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : R01 EB020613
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2019 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Références
Magn Reson Med. 1999 Nov;42(5):952-62
pubmed: 10542355
Magn Reson Med. 2002 Jun;47(6):1202-10
pubmed: 12111967
Magn Reson Med. 2004 Dec;52(6):1388-96
pubmed: 15562493
Magn Reson Med. 2006 Mar;55(3):549-56
pubmed: 16408271
Magn Reson Med. 2006 Mar;55(3):633-48
pubmed: 16470597
Magn Reson Med. 2006 Aug;56(2):317-26
pubmed: 16826608
Eur J Radiol. 2008 Jan;65(1):36-46
pubmed: 17980534
Magn Reson Med. 2012 May;67(5):1210-24
pubmed: 21858868
J Clin Neurosci. 2013 Mar;20(3):400-5
pubmed: 23266077
Neuroimage. 2013 May 15;72:41-7
pubmed: 23370063
Radiology. 2013 May;267(2):328-38
pubmed: 23610094
Magn Reson Med. 2014 Mar;71(3):990-1001
pubmed: 23649942
Lancet Neurol. 2013 Aug;12(8):822-38
pubmed: 23867200
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Feb;41(2):266-95
pubmed: 24737382
Stroke. 2014 Jul;45(7):1985-91
pubmed: 24916906
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Jun;73(6):2152-62
pubmed: 24986223
J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Nov;11(11):1044-7
pubmed: 25439619
J Am Coll Radiol. 2015 May;12(5):463-6
pubmed: 25448060
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Oct;42(4):887-901
pubmed: 25630632
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Mar;73(3):929-938
pubmed: 25640187
J Neuroimaging. 2016 Sep;26(5):503-10
pubmed: 27273370
Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Jan;35:69-80
pubmed: 27594531
Magn Reson Med. 2017 Sep;78(3):1093-1099
pubmed: 27770457
Magn Reson Med. 2017 Oct;78(4):1405-1419
pubmed: 27813164
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Jan;79(1):401-406
pubmed: 28220617
Pediatr Radiol. 2018 Jan;48(1):31-36
pubmed: 28470388
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Sep;38(9):1689-1694
pubmed: 28705816
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Jun;79(6):3045-3054
pubmed: 29090483