3
|
Zaidat OO, Bozorgchami H, Ribó M, Saver JL, Mattle HP, Chapot R, Narata AP, Francois O, Jadhav AP, Grossberg JA, Riedel CH, Tomasello A, Clark WM, Nordmeyer H, Lin E, Nogueira RG, Yoo AJ, Jovin TG, Siddiqui AH, Bernard T, Claffey M, Andersson T, Ribo M, Hetts S, Hacke W, Mehta B, Hacein-Bey L, Kim A, Abou-Chebl A, Shabe P, Hetts S, Hacein-Bey L, Kim A, Abou-Chebl A, Dix J, Gurian J, Zink W, Dabus G, O’Leary, N, Reilly A, Lee K, Foley J, Dolan M, Hartley E, Clark T, Nadeau K, Shama J, Hull L, Brown B, Priest R, Nesbit G, Horikawa M, Hoak D, Petersen B, Beadell N, Herrick K, White C, Stacey M, Ford S, Liu J, Ribó M, Sanjuan, E, Sanchis M, Molina C, Rodríguez-Luna, D, Boned Riera S, Pagola J, Rubiera M, Juega J, Rodríguez N, Muller N, Stauder M, Stracke P, Heddier M, Charron V, Decock A, Herbreteau D, Bibi R, De Sloovere A, Doutreloigne I, Pieters D, Dewaele T, Bourgeois P, Vanhee F, Vanderdouckt P, Vancaster E, Baxendell L, Gilchrist V, Cannon Y, Graves C, Armbruster K, Jovin T, Jankowitz B, Ducruet A, Aghaebrahim A, Kenmuir C, Shoirah H, Molyneaux B, Tadi P, Walker G, Starr M, Doppelheuer S, Schindler K, Craft L, Schultz M, Perez H, Park J, Hall A, Mitchell A, Webb L, Haussen D, Frankel M, Bianchi N, Belagaje S, Mahdi N, Lahoti S, Katema A, Winningham M, Anderson A, Tilley D, Steinhauser T, Scott D, Thacker A, Calderon V, Lin E, Becke S, Krieter S, Jansen O, Wodarg F, Larsen N, Binder A, Wiesen C, Hartney M, Bookhagan L, Ross H, Gay J, Snyder K, Levy E, Davies J, Sonig A, Rangel-Castilla L, Mowla A, Shakir H, Fennell V, Atwal G, Natarajan S, Beecher J, Thornton J, Cullen A, Brennan P, O’Hare A, Asadi H, Budzik R, Taylor M, Jennings M, Laube F, Jackson J, Gatrell R, Reebel L, Albon A, Gerniak J, Groezinger K, Lauf M, Voraco N, Pema P, Davis T, Hicks W, Mejilla J, Teleb M, Sunenshine P, Russo E, Flynn R, Twyford J, Ver Hage A, Smith E, Apolinar L, Blythe S, Maxan J, Carter J, Taschner T, Bergmann U, Meckel S, Elsheik S, Urbach H, Maurer C, Egger K, Niesen W, Baxter B, Knox, A, Hazelwood B, Quarfordt S, Calvert J, Hawk H, Malek, R, Padidar A, Tolley U, Gutierrez A, Mordasini P, Seip T, Balasubramaniam R, Gralla J, Fischer U, Zibold F, Piechowiak E, DeLeacy R, Apruzzeses R, Alfonso C, Haslett J, Fifi J, Mocco J, Starkman S, Guzy, J, Grunberg N, Szeder V, Tateshima S, Duckwiler G, Nour M, Liebeskind D, Tang X, Hinman J, Tipirneni A, Yavagal D, Guada L, Bates K, Balladeras S, Bokka S, Suir S, Caplan J, Kandewall P, Peterson E, Starke R, Puri A, Hawk M, Brooks C, L’Heurex J, Ty K, Rex D, Massari F, Wakhloo A, Lozano D, Rodrigua K, Pierot L, Fabienne M, Sebastien S, Emmoinoli M. Primary Results of the Multicenter ARISE II Study (Analysis of Revascularization in Ischemic Stroke With EmboTrap). Stroke 2018; 49:1107-1115. [DOI: 10.1161/strokeaha.117.020125] [Citation(s) in RCA: 92] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2017] [Revised: 02/05/2018] [Accepted: 02/26/2018] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Osama O. Zaidat
- From the Department of Neuroscience, Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center, Toledo, OH (O.O.Z., E.L.)
| | | | - Marc Ribó
- Department of Neuroradiology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain (M.R., A.T.)
| | - Jeffrey L. Saver
- Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles (J.L.S.)
| | - Heinrich P. Mattle
- Department of Neurology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Switzerland (H.P.M.)
| | - René Chapot
- Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, Alfried Krupp Krankenhaus, Essen, Germany (R.C., H.N.)
| | - Ana Paula Narata
- Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire, Hôpitaux de Tours, France (A.P.N.)
| | | | - Ashutosh P. Jadhav
- Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, PA (A.P.J., T.G.J.)
| | - Jonathan A. Grossberg
- Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA (J.A.G., R.G.N.)
| | | | - Alejandro Tomasello
- Department of Neuroradiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (T.A.)
| | - Wayne M. Clark
- Oregon Health and Science University Hospital, Portland (H.B., W.M.C.)
| | - Hannes Nordmeyer
- Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, Alfried Krupp Krankenhaus, Essen, Germany (R.C., H.N.)
| | - Eugene Lin
- From the Department of Neuroscience, Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center, Toledo, OH (O.O.Z., E.L.)
| | - Raul G. Nogueira
- Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA (J.A.G., R.G.N.)
| | - Albert J. Yoo
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Texas Stroke Institute, Dallas–Fort Worth (A.J.Y.)
| | - Tudor G. Jovin
- Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, PA (A.P.J., T.G.J.)
| | | | | | | | - Tommy Andersson
- Department of Neuroradiology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain (M.R., A.T.)
- AZ Groeninge, Kortrijk, Belgium (O.F., T.A.)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gauvrit JY, Law M, Xu J, Carson R, Sunenshine P, Chen Q. Time-resolved MR angiography: optimal parallel imaging method. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28:835-8. [PMID: 17494652 PMCID: PMC8134333] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Time-resolved (TR) MR angiography (MRA) using parallel imaging techniques is proving to have clinical utility for improving MRA spatial and temporal resolution and separating arterial from venous anatomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate TR MRA of the intracranial vessels at different integrated parallel acquisition technique (IPAT) factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS 3D TR MRA using time-resolved echo-shared angiographic technique was performed with different IPAT factors (0, 2, 3) at 1.5 T, resulting in temporal resolutions of 4.0, 1.7, and 1.3 seconds, respectively. We studied 14 subjects, comprising 12 patients with various pathologic conditions and 2 healthy subjects. The brain volume was covered by 36 partitions, and a bolus of 5 mL of gadopentate dimeglumine was administered. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), the number of frames that distinguished between arterial and venous phases, the conspicuity of the vasculature, and artifacts were analyzed. RESULTS There was no significant difference in SNR between IPAT factors 0 and 2. Moreover, SNR was significantly lower with IPAT 3 than with IPAT 0 or 2. Smaller vessel segments (M3 and P3) were rated significantly inferior with TR MRA IPAT 2 or 3 compared with MRA without IPAT. For larger proximal vessels (A1 and A2 segments of anterior cerebral artery, M1 and M2 segments of middle cerebral artery, P2 segment of posterior cerebral artery, and basilar artery), there was no difference between TR MRA IPAT 0 and 2. CONCLUSION To obtain arterial and venous information in a clinical setting, intracranial TR MRA is best performed with an IPAT factor of 2 with at least 5 mL of contrast.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J-Y Gauvrit
- Department of Neuroradiology, EA 2691, Salengro Hospital, University Hospital of Lille, Lille, France.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Inglese M, Spindler M, Babb JS, Sunenshine P, Law M, Gonen O. Field, coil, and echo-time influence on sensitivity and reproducibility of brain proton MR spectroscopy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27:684-8. [PMID: 16552016 PMCID: PMC7976981] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Clinical MR imaging scanners now offer many choices of hardware configurations that were not available in the first 25 years of their existence. Our goal was to assess the influence of coil technology, magnetic field strength, and echo time (TE) on the sensitivity, reflected by the signal intensity-to-noise-ratio (SNR) and reproducibility of proton MR spectroscopy (1H-MR spectroscopy). MATERIAL AND METHODS The SNR, the intersubject reproducibility, and the intrasubject reproducibility of N-acetylaspartate (NAA), creatine (Cr), and choline (Cho) levels were compared at the common TEs of 30, 144, and 288 ms, by using 1H-MR spectroscopy in 6 volunteers at (1) 3T with a single-element quadrature (SEQ); (2) 1.5T with SEQ; and (3) 1.5T with a 12-channel phased-array (PA) head coil. RESULTS In terms of sensitivity, the best SNR for all metabolites was obtained at the shortest TE (30 ms). It was comparable between the 3 and 1.5T with the PA, but approximately 35% better than the 1.5T with SEQ. This SNR difference declined <25% at TE of 144 ms and to equity among all imagers at TE of 288 ms. Reproducibility, reflected in the coefficient of variation (CV), was best for NAA at TE of 288 ms, 15%-50% better than at TE of 30 ms in either gray (GM) or white matter (WM). The CV for Cr was best, at TE of 288 ms for GM, but its WM results were independent of TE. Metabolite level reproducibility did not depend on coil technology or magnetic field strength. CONCLUSIONS For the same coil type, the SNR of all major metabolites was approximately 35% better at 3T than at 1.5T. This advantage, however, was offset at 1.5T with a PA coil, making it a cost-effective upgrade for existing scanners. Surprisingly and counterintuitively, despite the lowest SNR, the best reproducibility was obtained at the longest TE (288 ms), regardless of field or coil.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Inglese
- Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|