Disparity of time-contrast curves generated by various types of power injectors used in magnetic resonance imaging.


Journal

Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 11 2020
Historique:
received: 29 06 2020
accepted: 28 10 2020
entrez: 12 11 2020
pubmed: 13 11 2020
medline: 13 11 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The profiles of time-contrast (TC) -curves from popular MRI injectors derived at the injection site of the attached tube-line system were compared. Variations of TC-profiles were previously reported to potentially influence image quality in time critical MRI measurements. TC-curves from five injectors obtained during commonly used injection protocols were assessed according to representative quality criteria: (1) correlation strength between a fitted boxcar function and the TC-curve (cBCF) and (2) difference between true and expected injection time (dBIT). Additionally, the impact from technical injector properties: pump type, line volume, maximum injection power and type of contrast medium (CM) on the TC-profiles was evaluated. Injectors using a piston-syrinx (PS) mechanism for CM-injection performed significantly better than those working with a peristaltic roller pump (RP) technique. Besides injection mechanism, line filling volume showed a strong influence on the final TC-curves, where larger filling volumes induced worse cBCF- and dBIT-results. Therefore, to achieve an optimal bolus in clinical MRI use of a PS-injector seems recommendable. Besides their pump mechanism, RP-injectors appeared additionally hampered by their high volume line systems, pointing out an unfavourable coinicidence of these technical features in RP-injectors. This should be considered, particularly, in comparative or time-critical MRI-studies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33177570
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76536-x
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-76536-x
pmc: PMC7658966
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

19568

Références

Invest Radiol. 2017 Sep;52(9):547-553
pubmed: 28448310
Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2006 May-Jun;1(3):128-37
pubmed: 17193689
Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2015 Jan-Mar;25(1):2-10
pubmed: 25709157
Radiol Technol. 2019 Mar;90(4):344-352
pubmed: 30886031
Magn Reson Insights. 2017 Apr 20;10:1178623X17705894
pubmed: 28579796
Rofo. 2005 May;177(5):646-54
pubmed: 15871079

Auteurs

Marcus Doppler (M)

Department of Radiology, University Hospital Tulln, Alter Ziegelweg 10, A - 3430 Tulln a.D. Donau, Tulln, Austria.

Ewald Moser (E)

Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Uros Klickovic (U)

Department of Radiology, University Hospital Tulln, Alter Ziegelweg 10, A - 3430 Tulln a.D. Donau, Tulln, Austria.

Christian Nasel (C)

Department of Radiology, University Hospital Tulln, Alter Ziegelweg 10, A - 3430 Tulln a.D. Donau, Tulln, Austria. christian.nasel@meduniwien.ac.at.
Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. christian.nasel@meduniwien.ac.at.

Classifications MeSH