Respiratory motion artifacts during arterial phase imaging with gadoxetic acid: Can the injection protocol minimize
Stephan H Polanec1, Hubert Bickel1, Pascal A T Baltzer1
1Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University, Vienna, Austria.
Purpose:
To determine which of three gadoxetic acid injection techniques best reduced the contrast-related arterial-phase motion artifacts.
Materials And Methods:
This Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved, retrospective study included a cohort of 78 consecutive patients who each had serial gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the liver (0.025 mmol/kg body weight) performed with at least two of three injection techniques: M1 test bolus, undiluted, power-injected 1 mL/s; M2 test bolus, diluted 50% with saline, power-injected 1 mL/s; M3 fixed delay, undiluted, manually injected. Blinded to the injection method, three readers independently rated the randomized images for arterial-phase motion artifacts, arterial-phase timing, and arterial-phase lesion visibility using a four-point Likert scale.
Results:
Regarding respiratory artifacts, gadoxetic acid arterial-phase images were judged better with M3 (2.7 ± 0.7) and were significantly less than those with M1 (2.1 ± 1.1) (P = 0.0001). Arterial-phase M2 (2.50 ± 0.89) images were rated significantly better than arterial-phase M1 images (P = 0.012), but the difference between arterial-phase images with M3 and M2 scores was not statistically significant (P = 0.49). Arterial-phase timing was significantly better for M1 compared to M3, and for M2 compared to M3 (P < 0.0001 for both). The area under the curve was 0.59-0.68. However, there was no significant difference between M1 and M2 (P = 0.35). With regard to arterial-phase lesion visibility, there was no significant difference in the ratings between any of the three injection techniques (P = 0.29-0.72). Interreader agreement was moderate to substantial (κ = 0.41-0.62).
Conclusion:
A diluted, power-injected protocol (M2) seems to provide good timing and minimize artifacts compared with two other injection methods. No significant difference was found in lesion visibility between these three methods.
Level Of Evidence:
3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1107-1114.
Insights
A diluted, power-injected gadoxetic acid protocol (M2) effectively minimizes motion artifacts and improves arterial-phase timing in liver MRI. Lesion visibility remained consistent across all tested injection techniques.
Area of Science:
- Radiology
- Medical Imaging
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
Background:
- Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI is crucial for liver lesion detection.
- Motion artifacts can compromise image quality and diagnostic accuracy.
- Optimizing contrast injection techniques is essential for reliable MRI examinations.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare three gadoxetic acid injection techniques for reducing contrast-related arterial-phase motion artifacts in liver MRI.
- To evaluate the impact of different injection methods on arterial-phase timing and lesion visibility.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 78 patients undergoing serial 3.0T liver MRI with gadoxetic acid.
- Three injection techniques were compared: M1 (undiluted, power-injected test bolus), M2 (50% diluted, power-injected test bolus), and M3 (undiluted, manual fixed delay).
- Three blinded readers assessed motion artifacts, timing, and lesion visibility on a Likert scale.
Main Results:
- The M3 technique showed significantly fewer respiratory artifacts compared to M1.
- The M2 technique demonstrated significantly better arterial-phase timing than M3.
- No significant differences in arterial-phase lesion visibility were observed among the three methods.
Conclusions:
- A diluted, power-injected protocol (M2) offers a favorable balance of minimized artifacts and good arterial-phase timing.
- While M2 and M3 reduced artifacts compared to M1, M2 provided superior timing.
- Lesion visibility was not significantly affected by the injection technique, suggesting M2 is a viable option.
More Related Videos
05:07Author Spotlight: Optimized Lung MRI Protocol with Computationally Efficient Reconstruction Methods
Published on: September 6, 2024
08:35Oxygenation-sensitive Cardiac MRI with Vasoactive Breathing Maneuvers for the Non-invasive Assessment of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction
Published on: August 17, 2022
Related Concept Videos
01:30Radiological Investigation II: MRI and Ventilation Perfusion Scan
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Ventilation Perfusion Scans are two radiological investigations that offer detailed diagnostic images of the body, particularly lung structures.
MRI
MRI uses magnetic fields and radiofrequency signals to distinguish between normal and abnormal tissues. This technology provides a more detailed diagnostic image than CT scans, enabling it to characterize pulmonary nodules, stage bronchogenic carcinoma, and evaluate inflammatory activity in...
01:13Radiological Investigation III: Pulmonary Angiogram and PET Scan
Pulmonary Angiogram
A Pulmonary Angiogram is an invasive procedure involving injecting a contrast medium through a catheter threaded into the pulmonary artery or the right side of the heart to visualize the pulmonary vasculature. Computed Tomography (CT) scans have mainly replaced this...
01:21Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System IV: CMRI