Ultrashort echo time imaging of the lungs under high-frequency noninvasive ventilation: A new approach to lung imaging.
UTE
lung
respiratory stabilization
ventilation
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:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
received:
19
10
2018
accepted:
16
05
2019
pubmed:
29
5
2019
medline:
11
11
2020
entrez:
29
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Although ultrashort echo time (UTE) sequences allow excellent assessment of lung parenchyma, image quality remains lower than that of computed tomography (CT). To investigate a high-frequency noninvasive ventilation (HF-NIV) technique allowing a stabilized inspiration and to compare image quality with current dedicated MR sequences. Prospective. Ten healthy volunteers. 3D radial UTE sequence at 1.5T. UTE-HF-NIV sequence was compared with UTE-free-breathing (UTE-FB), reconstructed at end expiration (UTE-Exp) and average (UTE-Avg), and breath-hold VIBE sequences. The distance from lung apex to the dome of the right hemidiaphragm was measured. Visual assessment of the visibility and sharpness of normal anatomical structures was carried out. Dedicated software also quantitatively evaluated vessel-lung and right lung-liver interface sharpness. Apparent signal ratio (Sr) and contrast ratios (Cr) were quantitatively evaluated. Wilcoxon signed rank test for visual scores, paired t-test for continuous variables, significance at P < 0.05. The distance between apex and the right hemidiaphragmatic dome was significantly larger (P < 0.001) with UTE-HF-NIV compared with UTE-FB and VIBE acquisitions. Vessel and airway visibility had identical median visual scores with all UTE methods. Median visual scores for sharpness of vessels and airways were significantly higher (P < 0.001) with HF-NIV (vessels = 3; airways = 2) than in UTE-FB (vessels = 2; airways = 1) and VIBE (vessels = 1; airways = 1). Software-based vessel sharpness evaluation resulted in larger values in 8/10 volunteers with UTE-HF-NIV (67.3 ± 9.8) compared with UTE-Avg (62.3 ± 12.6) but the average difference was not significant (P = 0.28). The sharpness of the lung-liver interface was significantly higher (P < 0.001) with HF-NIV (17.3 ± 5.3) compared with UTE-Avg (14.1 ± 3.9). Significantly higher values (P < 0.01) of Sr and Cr were observed with UTE-HF-NIV compared with UTE-FB and VIBE. HF-NIV allowing acquisition at full inspiration significantly improves image quality for lung imaging. This could offer the option to alternate some follow-up CT studies by using this technique. 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1789-1797.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Although ultrashort echo time (UTE) sequences allow excellent assessment of lung parenchyma, image quality remains lower than that of computed tomography (CT).
PURPOSE
To investigate a high-frequency noninvasive ventilation (HF-NIV) technique allowing a stabilized inspiration and to compare image quality with current dedicated MR sequences.
STUDY TYPE
Prospective.
POPULATION
Ten healthy volunteers.
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE
3D radial UTE sequence at 1.5T.
ASSESSMENT
UTE-HF-NIV sequence was compared with UTE-free-breathing (UTE-FB), reconstructed at end expiration (UTE-Exp) and average (UTE-Avg), and breath-hold VIBE sequences. The distance from lung apex to the dome of the right hemidiaphragm was measured. Visual assessment of the visibility and sharpness of normal anatomical structures was carried out. Dedicated software also quantitatively evaluated vessel-lung and right lung-liver interface sharpness. Apparent signal ratio (Sr) and contrast ratios (Cr) were quantitatively evaluated.
STATISTICAL TESTS
Wilcoxon signed rank test for visual scores, paired t-test for continuous variables, significance at P < 0.05.
RESULTS
The distance between apex and the right hemidiaphragmatic dome was significantly larger (P < 0.001) with UTE-HF-NIV compared with UTE-FB and VIBE acquisitions. Vessel and airway visibility had identical median visual scores with all UTE methods. Median visual scores for sharpness of vessels and airways were significantly higher (P < 0.001) with HF-NIV (vessels = 3; airways = 2) than in UTE-FB (vessels = 2; airways = 1) and VIBE (vessels = 1; airways = 1). Software-based vessel sharpness evaluation resulted in larger values in 8/10 volunteers with UTE-HF-NIV (67.3 ± 9.8) compared with UTE-Avg (62.3 ± 12.6) but the average difference was not significant (P = 0.28). The sharpness of the lung-liver interface was significantly higher (P < 0.001) with HF-NIV (17.3 ± 5.3) compared with UTE-Avg (14.1 ± 3.9). Significantly higher values (P < 0.01) of Sr and Cr were observed with UTE-HF-NIV compared with UTE-FB and VIBE.
DATA CONCLUSION
HF-NIV allowing acquisition at full inspiration significantly improves image quality for lung imaging. This could offer the option to alternate some follow-up CT studies by using this technique.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1789-1797.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31136048
doi: 10.1002/jmri.26808
pmc: PMC6900075
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1789-1797Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Références
Insights Imaging. 2012 Aug;3(4):355-71
pubmed: 22695944
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Feb;118(2):220-6
pubmed: 26979264
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Sep;42(3):602-9
pubmed: 25545835
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Jun;79(6):2954-2967
pubmed: 29023975
Radiology. 2017 Aug;284(2):562-573
pubmed: 28263700
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Apr;45(4):1204-1215
pubmed: 27731948
Magn Reson Med. 2002 Oct;48(4):658-66
pubmed: 12353283
Radiology. 2016 Jan;278(1):239-46
pubmed: 26133050
Radiology. 1991 Jun;179(3):777-81
pubmed: 2027991
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Apr;41(4):870-83
pubmed: 25045018
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Apr 29;13:61
pubmed: 23627889
J Nucl Med. 2006 Feb;47(2):298-301
pubmed: 16455636
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Jun;210(6):1216-1225
pubmed: 29547055
Magn Reson Med. 2007 Jan;57(1):74-81
pubmed: 17191248
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Aug 28;14:100
pubmed: 25168681
Insights Imaging. 2012 Aug;3(4):345-53
pubmed: 22695952
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Jun;41(6):1708-14
pubmed: 25044618
Magn Reson Med. 1996 Oct;36(4):579-87
pubmed: 8892211
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Apr 1;195(7):958-960
pubmed: 28362201
Magn Reson Med. 2016 Apr;75(4):1594-604
pubmed: 25960337
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014 Feb;37(1):140-6
pubmed: 23636246
Nat Med. 1996 Nov;2(11):1236-9
pubmed: 8898751
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Feb;49(2):411-422
pubmed: 30252989
Magn Reson Med. 2011 Oct;66(4):1049-56
pubmed: 21469185
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Dec;48(6):1489-1497
pubmed: 30203889
J Nucl Med. 2016 Mar;57(3):416-9
pubmed: 26635339
Magn Reson Med. 2013 Sep;70(3):657-63
pubmed: 23813579
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997 Jul-Aug;7(4):629-36
pubmed: 9243380
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Feb;43(2):512-32
pubmed: 26223818
Magn Reson Med. 2016 Mar;75(3):1324-32
pubmed: 25940111
Magn Reson Med. 2017 Mar;77(3):1284-1295
pubmed: 26972576
Magn Reson Med. 2013 Nov;70(5):1241-50
pubmed: 23213020
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Oct;40(4):839-47
pubmed: 24123396
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Apr;79(4):2297-2305
pubmed: 28856720
Radiology. 2015 Jul;276(1):258-65
pubmed: 25768672
Eur Radiol. 2016 Nov;26(11):3811-3820
pubmed: 26843010
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 12;12(6):e0178807
pubmed: 28604833