Calastra Camilla Giulia, Kleban Elena, Helfenstein Fabrice Noël, Haupt Fabian, Peters Alan Arthur, Huber Adrian, von Tengg-Kobligk Hendrik, Jung Bernd
Department of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology (DIPR), Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Translational Imaging Center (TIC), Swiss Institute for Translational and Entrepreneurial Medicine, Bern, Switzerland.
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2024 Dec;40(12):2523-2534. doi: 10.1007/s10554-024-03259-9. Epub 2024 Oct 12.
To compare the application of two contrast-enhanced time-resolved magnetic resonance angiography sequences on an aortic disease patient cohort: the conventional Cartesian-sampling-based, Time-resolved angiography With Interleaved Stochastic Trajectories (TWIST) sequence, and the radial-sampling-based Golden-angle RAdial Sparse Parallel (GRASP) sequence. TWIST is highly sensitive to patient movement, which can lead to blurring and reduced sharpness of vascular structures, particularly in dynamic regions like the aorta. Such motion artifacts can compromise diagnostic accuracy. Radial-sampling-based techniques are less sensitive to motion than cartesian sampling and are expected to improve the image quality in body parts subjected to motion.
30 patients (60.9 ± 16.1y.o.) with various aortic diseases underwent a 1.5T magnetic resonance angiography examination. Assessment of image quality in the ascending aorta (AA), descending aorta (DA), and abdominal aorta (AbA) on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = excellent, 4 = non-diagnostic) as well as max. aortic diameters (Dmax) were performed. T-test and multilevel mixed-effect proportional-odds models were used for the image analysis.
GRASP offered superior depiction of vascular structures in terms of vascular contrast for qualitative analysis (TWIST, reader 1: 1.6 ± 0.5; reader 2: 1.9 ± 0.4; reader 3: 1.1 ± 0.4; GRASP, reader 1: 1.5 ± 0.5; reader 2: 1.4 ± 0.5; reader 3: 1.0 ± 0.2) and vessel sharpness for qualitative (TWIST, reader 1: 1.9 ± 0.6; reader 2: 1.6 ± 0.6; reader 3: 2.0 ± 0.3; GRASP, reader 1: 1.4 ± 0.6; reader 2: 1.2 ± 0.4; reader 3: 1.3 ± 0.6) and quantitative analysis (TWIST, AA = 0.12 ± 0.04, DA = 0.12 ± 0.03, AbA = 0.11 ± 0.03; GRASP, AA = 0.20 ± 0.05, DA = 0.22 ± 0.06, AbA0.20 ± 0.05). Streaking artefacts of GRASP were more visible compared to TWIST (TWIST, reader 1: 2.2 ± 0.6; reader 2: 1.9 ± 0.3; reader 3: 2.0 ± 0.5; GRASP, reader 1: 2.6 ± 0.6; reader 2: 2.3 ± 0.5; reader 3: 2.8 ± 0.6). Aortic Dmax comparison among the sequence showed no clinical relevance.
GRASP outperformed TWIST in SNR, vessel sharpness, and reduction in image blurring; streaking artefacts were stronger with GRASP, but did not affect diagnostic image quality.
比较两种对比增强时间分辨磁共振血管造影序列在主动脉疾病患者队列中的应用：传统的基于笛卡尔采样的时间分辨交错随机轨迹血管造影（TWIST）序列和基于径向采样的金角径向稀疏并行（GRASP）序列。TWIST对患者运动高度敏感，这可能导致血管结构模糊和清晰度降低，尤其是在主动脉等动态区域。这种运动伪影会影响诊断准确性。基于径向采样的技术对运动的敏感性低于笛卡尔采样，预计可提高受运动影响身体部位的图像质量。
30例（60.9±16.1岁）患有各种主动脉疾病的患者接受了1.5T磁共振血管造影检查。采用4分李克特量表（1=优秀，4=无法诊断）对升主动脉（AA）、降主动脉（DA）和腹主动脉（AbA）的图像质量以及最大主动脉直径（Dmax）进行评估。采用t检验和多级混合效应比例优势模型进行图像分析。
在定性分析的血管对比度方面，GRASP对血管结构的显示更优（TWIST，读者1：1.6±0.5；读者2：1.9±0.4；读者3：1.1±0.4；GRASP，读者1：1.5±0.5；读者2：1.4±0.5；读者3：1.0±0.2），在定性（TWIST，读者1：1.9±0.6；读者2：1.6±0.6；读者3：2.0±0.3；GRASP，读者1：1.4±0.6；读者2：1.2±0.4；读者3：1.3±0.6）和定量分析（TWIST，AA=0.12±0.04，DA=0.12±0.03，AbA=0.11±0.03；GRASP，AA=0.20±0.05，DA=0.22±0.06，AbA0.20±0.05）的血管清晰度方面也是如此。与TWIST相比，GRASP的条纹伪影更明显（TWIST，读者1：2.2±0.6；读者2：1.9±0.3；读者3：2.0±0.5；GRASP，读者1：2.6±0.6；读者2：2.3±0.5；读者3：2.8±0.6）。序列间主动脉Dmax比较无临床意义。
GRASP在信噪比、血管清晰度和图像模糊度降低方面优于TWIST；GRASP的条纹伪影更明显，但不影响诊断图像质量。
