Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]104271
• Lectures •
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: Part IV——The comparison of imaging features of cardiovascular magnetic resonance scanners with different field strength
YIN Gang  HE Guang-jun  ZHAO Shi-hua 

DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2014.01.014.


[Abstract] This article is the fourth section. Following the three previous sections, the current major types of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scanner, 1.5 T and 3.0 T, were presented. 3.0 T system has played a role as the standardization for nervous system imaging in most units. But for body imaging, especially for cardiac imaging, there is much more challenging to perform imaging at 3.0 T than 1.5 T. However, it is the trend of development to perform CMR imaging in higher field strength due to the significant advantages. From the magnetic resonance physics to clinical application of CMR, the 1.5 T and 3.0 T CMR systems were compared in this article.
[Keywords] Magnetic resonance imaging；Field strength；Signal-to-noise；Chemical shift；Homogeneity；Frequency-scout

YIN Gang Department of Radiology in Fuwai Hospital, Beijing 100037, China

HE Guang-jun* Publishing House of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Corp. Ltd., Beijing 100190, China

ZHAO Shi-hua* Department of Radiology in Fuwai Hospital, Beijing 100037, China

*Correspondence to: Zhao SH, E-mail: cjrzhaoshihua2009@163.com. He GJ, E-mail: guangjunhe@126.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

志谢 　衷心感谢中国医学科学院，阜外心血管病医院凌坚教授及陆敏杰教授对本稿件的悉心指导、斟酌斧正
Received  2013-06-02
Accepted  2013-06-28
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2014.01.014
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2014.01.014.

[1]
Oshinski JN, Delfino JG, Sharma P, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance at 3.0 T: current state of the art. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 2010, 12: 55.
[2]
Wieben O, Francois C, Reeder SB. Cardiac MRI of ischemic heart disease at 3 T: potential and challenges. Eur J Radiol, 2008, 65(1):15-28.
[3]
Hashemi RH, Bradley WG Jr, Lisanti CJ. MRI: the basics-3rd edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams&Wilkins, 2010: 16-30.
[4]
Holloway CJ, Suttie J, Dass S, et al. Clinical cardiac magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Prog Cardiovasc Dis, 2011, 54(3): 320-327.
[5]
Tyler DJ, Hudsmith LE, Petersen SE, et al. Cardiac cine MR-imaging at 3T: FLASH vs SSFP. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 2006, 8(5):709-715.
[6]
Restrepo CS, Tavakoli S, Marmol-Velez A. Contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am, 2012,20(4): 739-760.
[7]
Cheng AS, Pegg TJ, Karamitsos TD, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 3-tesla for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparison with 1.5-tesla. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007,49(25): 2440-2449.
[8]
Walcher T, Ikuye K, Rottbauer W, et al. Is contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T superior to 1.5 T for detection of coronary artery disease? Int J Cardiovasc Imaging, 2013, 29(2):355-361.
[9]
Syed MA, Oshinski JN, Kitchen C, et al. Variability of carotid artery measurements on 3-Tesla MRI and its impact on sample size calculation for clinical research. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging, 2009, 25(6):581-589.
[10]
Schuster A, Morton G, Hussain ST, et al. The intra-observer reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking strain assessment is independent of field strength. Eur J Radiol, 2013, 82(2): 296-301.

PREV The right lateral ventricle triangle enterogenous cyst 1 case
NEXT Research progress of rat brain glioma models
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn