IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0213107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of four MR carotid surface coils at 3T

Author

Listed:
  • Qinwei Zhang
  • Bram F Coolen
  • Sandra van den Berg
  • Gyula Kotek
  • Debra S Rivera
  • Dennis W J Klomp
  • Gustav J Strijkers
  • Aart J Nederveen

Abstract

Background: The quality of carotid wall MRI can benefit substantially from a dedicated RF coil that is tailored towards the human neck geometry and optimized for image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), parallel imaging performance and RF penetration depth and coverage. In last decades, several of such dedicated carotid coils were introduced. However, a comparison of the more successful designs is still lacking. Objective: To perform a head-to-head comparison over four dedicated MR carotid surface coils with 4, 6, 8 and 30 coil elements, respectively. Material and methods: Ten volunteers were scanned on a 3T scanner. For each subject, multiple black-blood carotid vessel wall images were measured using the four coils with different parallel imaging settings. The performance of the coils was evaluated and compared in terms of image coverage, penetration depth and noise correlations between elements. Vessel wall of a common carotid section was delineated manually. Subsequently, images were assessed based on vessel wall morphology and image quality parameters. The morphological parameters consisted of the vessel wall area, thickness, and normalized wall index (wall area/total vessel area). Image quality parameters consisted of vessel wall SNR, wall-lumen contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), the vessel g-factor, and CNRindex ((wall–lumen signal) / (wall+lumen signal)). Repeated measures analysis of variance (rmANOVA) was applied for each parameter for the averaged 10 slices for all volunteers to assess effect of coil and SENSE factor. If the rmANOVA was significant, post-hoc comparisons were conducted. Results: No significant coil effect were found for vessel wall morphological parameters. SENSE acceleration affected some morphological parameters for 6- and 8-channel coils, but had no effect on the 30-channel coil. The 30-channel coil achieved high acceleration factors (10x) with significantly lower vessel g-factor values (ps ≤ 0.01), but lower vessel wall SNR and CNR values (ps ≤ 0.01). Conclusion: All four coils were capable of high-quality carotid MRI. The 30-channel coil is recommended when rapid image acquisition acceleration is required for 3D measurements, whereas 6- and 8-channel coils demonstrated the highest SNR performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Qinwei Zhang & Bram F Coolen & Sandra van den Berg & Gyula Kotek & Debra S Rivera & Dennis W J Klomp & Gustav J Strijkers & Aart J Nederveen, 2019. "Comparison of four MR carotid surface coils at 3T," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0213107
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213107
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213107&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0213107?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0213107. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.