Passive catheter tracking using MRI: Comparison of conventional and magnetization-prepared FLASH

Jordin D. Green, Reed A. Omary, J. Paul Finn, Richard Tang, Yongzhong Li, James Carr, Debiao Li*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: To compare a magnetization-prepared gradientecho (GRE) sequence with a conventional GRE sequence for visualizing contrast agent-filled catheters. Materials and Methods: Passive visualization of endovascular catheters using MRI was compared between two imaging sequences: 1) inversion recovery (IR)-fast low angle shot (FLASH), and 2) conventional FLASH. Two-dimensional projection images of the catheters filled with 4% diluted contrast agent in a phantom and the aorta of swine were obtained with each sequence with a temporal resolution of two frames per second. We compared background suppression and catheter visibility using the catheter-to-background signal ratio and the ratings of two radiologists. Results: In the phantom, IR-FLASH allowed for a 200% increase in catheter-to -background ratio (p < 0.01) and improved depiction of catheters over conventional FLASH. In swine, the IR-FLASH images showed a statistically significant improvement of 80% {p < 0.001} over conventional FLASH in all comparisons of the catheter-to-background signal ratio, and an improvement of 160% {p < 0.05} in comparison with the radiologists' observations. Conclusion: This study shows that IR-FLASH is a better technique for passive tracking of contrast agent-filled catheters than conventional FLASH.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)104-109
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2002

Keywords

  • Animals
  • Catheters
  • Contrast agent
  • Interventional procedures
  • Magnetic resonance imaging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Passive catheter tracking using MRI: Comparison of conventional and magnetization-prepared FLASH'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this