Intraindividual Comparison of High-Spatial-Resolution Abdominal MR Angiography at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: Initial Experience

Purpose: To prospectively compare three-dimensional (3D) contrast material–enhanced abdominal magnetic resonance (MR) angiography at 1.5 and 3.0 T intraindividually in healthy volunteers.

Materials and Methods: After institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained, 15 healthy male volunteers (age range, 24–41 years) underwent one abdominal 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiographic examination each at 1.5 and 3.0 T in random order. Fast 3D gradient-echo sequence with parallel imaging acceleration factor of three was used for MR angiography; acquired spatial resolutions were 1 × 0.8 × 1 mm3 (imaging time, 19 seconds) at 1.5 T and 0.9 × 0.8 × 0.9 mm3 (imaging time, 18 seconds) at 3.0 T. With the latter, volume of the 3D slab was 8% larger. At 1.5 T, 20-mL bolus of gadobenate dimeglumine was delivered at 2 mL/sec; at 3.0 T, 15-mL bolus was delivered at 2.5 mL/sec. Two blinded radiologists rated image quality of aorta and proximal renal arteries in consensus with five-point scale (4 = very good, 0 = nondiagnostic) according to sequence and in direct intraindividual comparison. Visibility of proximal and segmental renal arteries was rated with three-point scale (3 = completely visible, 1 = nonvisible). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was determined with phantoms. For statistical analysis of the SNRs, t tests were used.

Results: All MR angiographic measurements were diagnostic. Median score for image quality at both field strengths was 4. Depiction of proximal renal arteries was rated 3 at both field strengths. The visibility of the distal renal arteries was better at 3.0 T (median score, 3) than at 1.5 T (median score, 2). With direct comparison, 3.0-T MR angiography was better in 14 of 15 cases; no field strength was preferred in the other case. Mean SNR was significantly (P < .001) higher at 3.0 T (17.8 ± 0.09 [standard deviation]) than at 1.5 T (11.9 ± 0.10).

Conclusion: MR angiography at 3.0 T provided better vessel visibility and SNR than did that at 1.5 T, although voxel size and imaging time were reduced.

© RSNA, 2007


  • 1 Leiner T. Magnetic resonance angiography of abdominal and lower extremity vasculature. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 16: 21–66. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schoenberg SO, Rieger J, Nittka M, Dietrich O, Johannson LO, Reiser MF. Renal MR angiography: current debates and developments in imaging of renal artery stenosis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2003;24:255–267. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Michaely HJ, Schoenberg SO, Rieger JR, Reiser MF. MR angiography in patients with renal disease. Magn Reson Imaging Clin North Am 2005;13:131–151. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Vasbinder GB, Nelemans PJ, Kessels AG, et al. Accuracy of computed tomographic angiography and magnetic resonance angiography for diagnosing renal artery stenosis. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:674–682. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hoogeveen RM, Bakker CJ, Viergever MA. Limits to the accuracy of vessel diameter measurement in MR angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging 1998;8:1228–1235. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Schoenberg SO, Rieger J, Weber CH, et al. High-spatial-resolution MR angiography of renal arteries with integrated parallel acquisitions: comparison with digital subtraction angiography and US. Radiology 2005;235:687–698. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Vasbinder GB, Maki JH, Nijenhuis RJ, et al. Motion of the distal renal artery during three-dimensional contrast-enhanced breath-hold MRA. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002;16:685–696. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Slovut DP, Olin JW. Fibromuscular dysplasia. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1862–1871. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Campeau NG, Huston J 3rd, Bernstein MA, Lin C, Gibbs GF. Magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 Tesla: initial clinical experience. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2001;12:183–204. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, Alsop DC. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 2004; 230: 652–659. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 2005;40:715–724. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Michaely HJ, Nael K, Schoenberg SO, et al. The feasibility of spatial high-resolution magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) of the renal arteries at 3.0 T. Rofo 2005;177:800–804. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Krautmacher C, Willinek WA, Tschampa HJ, et al. Brain tumors: full- and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T—initial experience. Radiology 2005;237:1014–1019. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Araoz PA, Glockner JF, McGee KP, et al. 3 Tesla MR imaging provides improved contrast in first-pass myocardial perfusion imaging over a range of gadolinium doses. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2005;7:559–564. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zech CJ, Herrmann KA, Huber A, et al. High-resolution MR-imaging of the liver with T2-weighted sequences using integrated parallel imaging: comparison of prospective motion correction and respiratory triggering. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20:443–450. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lee VS, Rofsky NM, Krinsky GA, Stemerman DH, Weinreb JC. Single-dose breath-hold gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional MR angiography of the renal arteries. Radiology 1999;211:69–78. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Nael K, Laub G, Finn JP. Three-dimensional contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the thoraco-abdominal vessels. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2005;13:359–380. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Willinek WA, Gieseke J, Conrad R, et al. Randomly segmented central k-space ordering in high-spatial-resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the supraaortic arteries: initial experience. Radiology 2002;225:583–588. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chen Q, Quijano CV, Mai VM, et al. On improving temporal and spatial resolution of 3D contrast-enhanced body MR angiography with parallel imaging. Radiology 2004;231:893–899. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Goyen M, Debatin JF. Gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) for magnetic resonance angiography: review of the literature. Eur Radiol 2003; 13(suppl 3): N19–N27. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schmidt MA, Britten AJ, Tomlinson MA, et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the iliac arteries: optimization by injection simulation. Magn Reson Med 2001;46:365–373. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wilman AH, Riederer SJ, King BF, Debbins JP, Rossman PJ, Ehman RL. Fluoroscopically triggered contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MR angiography with elliptical centric view order: application to the renal arteries. Radiology 1997;205:137–146. LinkGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2007