4.5 Article

Cardiac Imaging at 7 Tesla: Single- and Two-Spoke Radiofrequency Pulse Design with 16-Channel Parallel Excitation

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
卷 70, 期 5, 页码 1210-1219

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.24935

关键词

parallel transmission; pTX; RF pulse design; spoke excitation; 7T; cardiac CINE imaging

资金

  1. NIH [P41 EB015894, R21 EB009138, R01 EB006835, R01 EB007327, S10 RR26783]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG SCHM 2677-1/1]
  3. The WM KECK Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeHigher signal to noise ratio (SNR) and improved contrast have been demonstrated at ultra-high magnetic fields (7 Tesla [T]) in multiple targets, often with multi-channel transmit methods to address the deleterious impact on tissue contrast due to spatial variations in B-1(+) profiles. When imaging the heart at 7T, however, respiratory and cardiac motion, as well as B-0 inhomogeneity, greatly increase the methodological challenge. In this study we compare two-spoke parallel transmit (pTX) RF pulses with static B-1(+) shimming in cardiac imaging at 7T. MethodsUsing a 16-channel pTX system, slice-selective two-spoke pTX pulses and static B-1(+) shimming were applied in cardiac CINE imaging. B-1(+) and B-0 mapping required modified cardiac triggered sequences. Excitation homogeneity and RF energy were compared in different imaging orientations. ResultsTwo-spoke pulses provide higher excitation homogeneity than B-1(+) shimming, especially in the more challenging posterior region of the heart. The peak value of channel-wise RF energy was reduced, allowing for a higher flip angle, hence increased tissue contrast. Image quality with two-spoke excitation proved to be stable throughout the entire cardiac cycle. ConclusionTwo-spoke pTX excitation has been successfully demonstrated in the human heart at 7T, with improved image quality and reduced RF pulse energy when compared with B-1(+) shimming. Magn Reson Med 70:1210-1219, 2013. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据