Adenosine Stress Perfusion Cardiac MRI: Improving Image Quality Using a 32-Channel Surface Coil

DOI: 10.4236/ojmi.2011.12004   PDF   HTML     4,238 Downloads   8,633 Views   Citations


Purpose: Adenosine stress CMR is commonly used to assess myocardial ischaemia. Obtaining high quality images requires maximising signal to noise ratio (SNR) over a large double-oblique field of view (FOV) whilst minimising artefacts. A 32-channel surface coil may provide a higher SNR over a larger FOV compared to standard coils, possibly leading to improved image quality. Materials and Methods: 50 adenosine perfusion CMR scans were performed on a Philips Achieva CV 1.5T, with either a 5 or 32-channel coil (25 patients each) using standardised acquisition protocols. 3 short axis slices were acquired per cardiac cycle and the resulting cine images were scored by two blinded CMR specialists on a quality scale of 1 to 5. Phantom studies were performed using similar acquisition parameters and the SNR was calculated and compared across a range of acceleration factors. Results: The mean patient age was 62 ± 11 years and 50% of patients were male. The image quality scores were higher using the 32-channel coil (mean 3.8 ± 0.7 vs 3.2 ± 0.9 p = 0.002). The average phantom SNR was greater for the 32-element coil across the range of acceleration factors measured (103 vs 86 p = <0.001). Conclusions: The 32-channel coil produces significantly higher quality images and a higher SNR than the 5-channel coil in routine perfusion CMR.

Share and Cite:

T. Burchell, R. Boubertakh, S. Mohiddin, M. Miquel, M. Westwood, A. Mathur and L. Davies, "Adenosine Stress Perfusion Cardiac MRI: Improving Image Quality Using a 32-Channel Surface Coil," Open Journal of Medical Imaging, Vol. 1 No. 2, 2011, pp. 21-25. doi: 10.4236/ojmi.2011.12004.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] N. Al-Saadi, E. Nagel, M. Gross, et al., “Noninvasive Detection of Myocardial Ischemia from Perfusion Reserve Based on Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance,” Circulation, Vol. 101, No. 12, 2000, pp. 1379-1383.
[2] T. Giang, D. Nanz, R. Coulden, et al., “Detection of Coronary Artery Disease by Magnetic Resonance Myocardial Perfusion Imaging with Various Contrast Medium Doses: First European Multi-Centre Experience,” European Heart Journal, Vol. 25, No. 18, 2004, pp. 1657-1665. doi:10.1016/j.ehj.2004.06.037
[3] E. Nagel, C. Klein, I. Paetsch, et al., “Magnetic Resonance Perfusion Measurements for the Noninvasive Detection of Coronary Artery Disease,” Circulation, Vol. 108, No. 4, 2003, pp. 432-437. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000080915.35024.A9
[4] J. Schwitter, D. Nanz, S. Kneifel, et al., “Assessment of Myocardial Perfusion in Coronary Artery Disease by Magnetic Resonance a Comparison with Positron Emission Tomography and Coronary Angiography,” Circulation, Vol. 103, No. 18, 2001, pp. 2230-2235.
[5] N. Wilke, M. Jerosch-Herold, A. Zenovich and A. Stillman, “Magnetic Resonance First-Pass Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: Clinical Validation and Future Applications,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 10, No. 5, 1999, pp. 676-685. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199911)10:5<676::AID-JMRI10>3.0.CO;2-L
[6] C. Jahnke, E. Nagel, R. Gebker, et al., “Prognostic Value of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Stress Tests: Adenosine Stress Perfusion and Dobutamine Stress Wall Motion Imaging,” Circulation, Vol. 115, No. 13, 2007, pp. 1769-1776. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.652016
[7] E. Di Bella, D. Parker and A. Sinusas, “On the Dark Rim Artifact in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Myocardial Perfusion Studies,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Vol. 54, No. 5, 2005, pp. 1295-1299.
[8] T. Niendorf and D. Sodickson, “Highly Accelerated Cardiovascular MR Imaging Using Many Channel Technology: Concepts and Clinical Applications,” European Radiology, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2008, pp. 87-102. doi:10.1007/s00330-007-0692-0
[9] S. Plein, S. Kozerke, D. Suerder, et al., “High Spatial Resolution Myocardial Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for the Detection of Coronary Artery Disease,” European Heart Journal, Vol. 29, No. 17, 2008, pp. 2148-2155.
[10] P. Araoz, J. Glockner, K. McGee, et al., “3 Tesla MR Imaging Provides Improved Contrast in First-Pass Myocardial Perfusion Imaging over a Range of Gadolinium Doses,” Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2005, pp. 559-564. doi:10.1081/JCMR-200060622
[11] C. J. Hardy, H. E. Cline, R. O. Giaquinto, et al., “32-Element Receiver-Coil Array for Cardiac Imaging,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Vol. 55, No. 5, 2006, pp. 1142-1149. doi:10.1002/mrm.20870
[12] Y. Zhu, C. J. Hardy, et al., “Highly Parallel Volumetric Imaging with a 32-Element RF Coil Array,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Vol. 52, No. 4, 2004, pp. 869- 877. doi:10.1002/mrm.20209
[13] S. Reeder, B. Wintersperger, O. Dietrich, et al., “Practical Approaches to the Evaluation of Signal-to-Noise Ratio Performance with Parallel Imaging: Application with Cardiac Imaging and a 32-Channel Cardiac Coil,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Vol. 54, No. 3, 2005, pp. 748-754. doi:10.1002/mrm.20636
[14] M. Ohliger and D. Sodickson, “An Introduction to Coil Array Design for Parallel MRI,” NMR in Biomedicine, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2006, pp. 300-315. doi:10.1002/nbm.1046
[15] M. Fenchel, V. Deshpande, K. Nael, et al., “Cardiac Cine Imaging at 3 Tesla: Initial Experience With a 32-Element Body-Array Coil,” Investigative Radiology, Vol. 41, No. 8, 2006, pp. 601-608. doi:10.1097/01.rli.0000223896.70095.49
[16] L. Shaw, D. Berman, D. Maron, et al., “Optimal Medical Therapy with or without Percutaneous Coronary Intervention to Reduce Ischemic Burden: Results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) Trial Nuclear substudy,” Circulation, Vol. 117, No. 10, 2008, pp. 1283-1291. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.743963
[17] P. Tonino, B. De Bruyne, N. Pijls, et al., “Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention,” The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 360, No. 3, 2009, pp. 213-224. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0807611
[18] J Schwitter, C. Wacker, A. van Rossum, et al., “MR-IMPACT: Comparison of Perfusion-Cardiac Magnetic Resonance with Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography for the Detection of Coronary Artery Disease in a Multicentre, Multivendor, Randomized Trial,” European Heart Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2008, pp. 480-489. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm617

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.