Gadoxetic acid-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging using optimized integrated combination of compressed sensing and parallel imaging technique

Publication date: Available online 12 November 2018

Source: Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Author(s): Nobuyuki Kawai, Satoshi Goshima, Yoshifumi Noda, Kimihiro Kajita, Hiroshi Kawada, Yukichi Tanahashi, Shoma Nagata, Masayuki Matsuo

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the feasibility of optimized integrated combination of compressed sensing and parallel imaging technique (prototype Compressed SENSE) in gadoxetic acid-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.

Materials and methods

Sixty-one patients underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced dynamic imaging using enhanced T1 high-resolution isotropic volume excitation (eTHRIVE) with the Compressed SENSE (CS-eTHRIVE; C SENSE factor, 3.4; acquisition time, 10 s). Results were compared with 61 propensity score-matched patients who underwent conventional eTHRIVE (eTHRIVE; acquisition time, 20 s). For quantitative image analyses, signal intensity ratio (SIR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), coefficient of variation (CV) of liver parenchyma were calculated in each dynamic phase. For qualitative image analyses, two radiologists rated the homogeneity of liver parenchyma, sharpness of liver edge and left external lobe, motion artifacts, and overall image quality in each dynamic phase using a five-point scale.

Results

SIRs of liver parenchyma with CS-eTHRIVE were significantly higher than with eTHRIVE in the hepatic arterial phase (HAP) (1.70 vs. 1.52) and transitional phase (TP) (2.18 vs. 2.06) (P ≤ 0.030). SNR of liver parenchyma were comparable between the two sequences in all phases. CV of liver parenchyma in HAP with eTHRIVE (0.079) was significantly higher than with CS-eTHRIVE (0.065) (P < 0.001). Motion artifacts were significantly reduced with CS-eTHRIVE compared with eTHRIVE in all phases (P ≤ 0.005). The appearance ratio of extensive motion artifacts in HAP with CS-eTHRIVE (0/61; 0%) were significantly reduced compared with eTHRIVE (4/61; 6.6%) (P = 0.042). Overall image quality with CS-eTHRIVE was significantly better than with eTHRIVE in all phases (P ≤ 0.039).

Conclusion

CS-eTHRIVE compared with eTHRIVE effectively reduced the acquisition time and extensive motion artifacts without degradation of image quality.

https://ift.tt/2z6FZQM