Vu Kim-Nhien, Haldipur Anshul G, Roh Albert Tae-Hun, Lindholm Peter, Loening Andreas Markus
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Stanford University, 1201 Welch Rd, Rm P287, Stanford, CA 94305.
Mercy Radiology Group, Inc., Dignity Health Medical Foundation, San Francisco, CA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 May;212(5):1024-1029. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20239. Epub 2019 Mar 5.
The purpose of this study was to compare respiratory motion artifact and diagnostic image quality between end-inspiration and end-expiration breath-holding techniques on unenhanced and contrast-enhanced axial T1-weighted MRI of the liver. This retrospective observational study included 50 consecutive subjects undergoing axial T1-weighted liver MRI, with unenhanced images acquired with both end-inspiration and end-expiration breath-holding techniques, and with contrast-enhanced images acquired for 47 of the subjects with either the end-inspiration or the end-expiration breath-holding technique. Three radiologists performed blinded independent evaluations of each unenhanced sequence, contrast-enhanced sequence, and subtraction (contrast-enhanced minus unenhanced) image, using a scale ranging from 1 point (denoting nondiagnostic imaging) to 5 points (denoting no artifacts). Blinded side-by-side assessment of each pair of unenhanced sequences was also performed. Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess statistical significance. A significant improvement in motion scores was noted for sequences acquired in end-expiration, compared with those acquired in end-inspiration, for unenhanced sequences (mean, 3.35 vs 2.80; < 0.00001), contrast-enhanced sequences (mean, 4.02 vs 3.46; = 0.0003), and subtraction images (mean, 3.67 vs 2.41; < 0.00001). Severe degradation of image quality or nondiagnostic image quality was noted for 15% of unenhanced images (23/150), 0% of contrast-enhanced images, and 8% (5/63) of subtraction images acquired on end-expiration, whereas it was noted for 36% (54/150) of unenhanced images, 13% (10/78) of contrast-enhanced images, and 59% (46/78) of subtraction images acquired on end-inspiration. When side-by-side assessment of paired unenhanced sequences was performed, images acquired in end-expiration were significantly favored in 59% of paired sequences (88/150) ( < 0.00001), and no difference between images acquired with both breath-hold techniques was noted for 21% (32/150) of paired sequences. The end-expiration breath-holding technique leads to significant decreases in respiratory motion artifacts, compared with the end-inspiration technique, on unenhanced and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted liver MRI.
本研究的目的是比较在肝脏未增强和对比增强的轴向T1加权磁共振成像(MRI)中,吸气末和呼气末屏气技术之间的呼吸运动伪影和诊断图像质量。这项回顾性观察性研究纳入了50例连续接受轴向T1加权肝脏MRI检查的受试者,未增强图像采用吸气末和呼气末屏气技术采集,47例受试者的对比增强图像采用吸气末或呼气末屏气技术采集。三位放射科医生对每个未增强序列、对比增强序列和减法(对比增强减去未增强)图像进行了盲法独立评估,使用的评分范围为1分(表示非诊断性成像)至5分(表示无伪影)。还对每对未增强序列进行了盲法并排评估。采用双尾Wilcoxon符号秩和Wilcoxon秩和检验评估统计学意义。与吸气末采集的序列相比,呼气末采集的未增强序列(平均值分别为3.35对2.80;<0.00001)、对比增强序列(平均值分别为4.02对3.46;=0.0003)和减法图像(平均值分别为3.67对2.41;<0.00001)的运动评分有显著改善。呼气末采集的未增强图像中有15%(23/150)、对比增强图像中为0%、减法图像中有8%(5/63)出现图像质量严重下降或非诊断性图像质量,而吸气末采集的未增强图像中有36%(54/150)、对比增强图像中有13%(10/78)、减法图像中有59%(46/78)出现上述情况。当对成对的未增强序列进行并排评估时,呼气末采集的图像在59%的成对序列(88/150)中明显更受青睐(<0.00001),21%(32/150)的成对序列中两种屏气技术采集的图像之间未发现差异。与吸气末技术相比,呼气末屏气技术在未增强和对比增强的T1加权肝脏MRI上可显著减少呼吸运动伪影。