Non‐contrast‐enhanced MR portography with balanced steady‐state free‐precession sequence and time‐spatial labeling inversion pulses: Comparison of imaging with flow‐in and flow‐out methods. Issue 3 (4th November 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Furuta, Akihiro; Isoda, Hiroyoshi; Yamashita, Rikiya; Ohno, Tsuyoshi; Kawahara, Seiya; Shimizu, Hironori; Fujimoto, Koji; Kido, Aki; Kusahara, Hiroshi; Togashi, Kaori
• Is Part Of: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging. Volume 40:Issue 3(2014)
• Page Start: 583
• Page End: 587
• Publication Date: 2013-11-04
• Subjects: Magnetic resonance imaging -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24427
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1053-1807

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="jmri24427-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Purpose</title> <p>To compare and evaluate images of non–contrast‐enhanced MR portography acquired with two different methods, the flow‐in and flow‐out methods.</p> </sec> <sec id="jmri24427-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Materials and Methods</title> <p>Twenty‐five healthy volunteers were examined using respiratory‐triggered three‐dimensional balanced steady‐state free‐precession (SSFP) with two selective inversion recovery pulses (flow‐in method) and one tagging pulse and one nonselective inversion recovery pulse (flow‐out method). For quantitative analysis, vessel‐to‐liver contrast (Cv‐l) ratios of the main portal vein (MPV), right portal vein (RPV), and left portal vein (LPV) were measured. The quality of portal vein visualization was scored using a four‐point scale.</p> </sec> <sec id="jmri24427-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>The Cv‐ls of the MPV, RPV, and LPV were all significantly higher with the flow‐out than flow‐in method (MPV = 0.834 ± 0.06 versus 0.711 ± 0.10; RPV = 0.861 ± 0.04 versus 0.729 ± 0.11; LPV = 0.786 ± 0.08 versus 0.545 ± 0.22; <italic>P</italic> < 0.0001). In all analyses of vessel visibility, non–contrast‐enhanced MR portography with the flow‐out method showed higher scores than with the flow‐in method. With the flow‐out method, visual scores of the MPV, RPV, portal vein branches of segments 4 (P4), and 8 (P8) were significantly better than with the flow‐in method (MPV = 3.4 ± 0.7 versus 2.6 ± 0.9; RPV = 4.0 ± 0.0 versus 3.5 ± 0.9; P4 = 2.8 ± 1.3 versus 1.6 ± 1.0; P8 = 4.0 ± 0.0 versus 2.9 ± 1.1; <italic>P</italic> < 0.05).</p> </sec> <sec id="jmri24427-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusion</title> <p>Non–contrast‐enhanced MR portography with the flow‐out method improves the visualization of the intrahepatic portal vein in comparison with the flow‐in method. <bold>J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2014;40:583–587</bold>. © <bold>2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc</bold>.</p> </sec> </abstract>