Comparing compressed sensing breath-hold 3D MR cholangiopancreatography with two parallel imaging MRCP strategies in main pancreatic duct and common bile duct.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the image quality and image consistency between 3D Breath-hold (BH)-MRCP with parallel imaging (3D-BH-PI-MRCP) and 3D-BH compressed sensing (CS)-MRCP (3D-BH-CS-MRCP) in patients with suspected pancreaticobiliary diseases, compared with 3D navigator-triggered (NT)-MRCP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The A total number of 109 patients who underwent 3D-NT-MRCP, 3D-BH-PI-MRCP and 3D-BH-CS-MRCP were prospectively enrolled in this study. The Friedman test was performed to compare quantitative values, image acquisition time, the presence of artifacts, overall image quality, and duct visualization among the three protocols. Additionally, we compared 3D-BH-PI-MRCP and 3D-BH-CS-MRCP with 3D-NT-MRCP in morphological consistency of main pancreatic duct and common bile duct (CBD) based on overall image quality score of = 4.

RESULTS

Three MRCP methods were successfully performed in all the patients. The contrast ratio, SNR and CNR of the CBD were significantly higher for 3D-BH-CS-MRCP than those for 3D-NT-MRCP and 3D-BH-PI-MRCP images. Overall image quality did differ significantly across the three sequences. Visualization of the CBD, RHD, LHD, anterior branch, posterior branch and cystic duct was similar with the 3D-BH-CS-MRCP and 3D-BH-PI-MRCP sequences. In contrast, segment 2 or 3 branch and main pancreatic duct visualization were significantly better with 3D-BH-PI-MRCP than with 3D-BH-CS-MRCP and 3D-NT-MRCP (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the two breath-hold approaches were considering the time-saving advantages without deterioration of image quality. Compared with 3D-BH-CS-MRCP, 3D-BH-PI-MRCP yielded significantly better visualization of the segment 2 and 3 branch of the intrahepatic duct and performed better consistency in main pancreatic duct and common bile duct morphology.