3D High-Spatial-Resolution Cerebral MR Venography at 3T: A Contrast-Dose-Reduction Study

References

1. ↵
   Mattle HP, Wentz KU, Edelman RR, et al. Cerebral venography with MR. Radiology 1991;178:453–58

   PubMedWeb of Science
2. Liauw L, van Buchem MA, Spilt A, et al. MR angiography of the intracranial venous system. Radiology 2000;214:678–82

   PubMed
3. ↵
   Farb RI, Scott JN, Willinsky RA, et al. Intracranial venous system: gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional MR venography with auto-triggered elliptic centric-ordered sequence—initial experience. Radiology 2003;226:203–09

   PubMed
4. Ayanzen RH, Bird CR, Keller PJ, et al. Cerebral MR venography: normal anatomy and potential diagnostic pitfalls. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:74–78

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. Pui MH. Cerebral MR venography. Clin Imaging 2004;28:85–89

   CrossRefPubMed
6. ↵
   Fera F, Bono F, Messina D, et al. Comparison of different MR venography techniques for detecting transverse sinus stenosis in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. J Neurol 2005;252:1021–25

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. ↵
   Liang L, Korogi Y, Sugahara T, et al. Normal structures in the intracranial dural sinuses: delineation with 3D contrast-enhanced magnetization prepared rapid acquisition gradient-echo imaging sequence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:1739–46

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. ↵
   Rollins N, Ison C, Reyes T, et al. Cerebral MR venography in children: comparison of 2D time-of-flight and gadolinium-enhanced 3D gradient-echo techniques. Radiology 2005;235:1011–17

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. ↵
   Hu HH, Campeau NG, Huston J, et al. High-spatial-resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the intracranial venous system with fourfold accelerated two-dimensional sensitivity encoding. Radiology 2007;243:853–61

   CrossRefPubMed
10. ↵
    Lovblad KO, Schneider J, Bassetti C, et al. Fast contrast-enhanced MR whole-brain venography. Neuroradiology 2002;44:681–88

    CrossRefPubMed
11. Kirchhof K, Welzel T, Jansen O, et al. More reliable noninvasive visualization of the cerebral veins and dural sinuses: comparison of three MR angiographic techniques. Radiology 2002;224:804–10

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. ↵
    Wetzel SG, Law M, Lee VS, et al. Imaging of the intracranial venous system with a contrast-enhanced volumetric interpolated examination. Eur Radiol 2003;13:1010–18

    PubMed
13. Lee JM, Jung S, Moon KS, et al. Preoperative evaluation of venous systems with 3-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance venography in brain tumors: comparison with time-of-flight magnetic resonance venography and digital subtraction angiography. Surg Neurol 2005;64:128–33

    CrossRefPubMed
14. ↵
    Mermuys KP, Vanhoenacker PK, Chappel P, et al. Three-dimensional venography of the brain with a volumetric interpolated sequence. Radiology 2005;234:901–08

    CrossRefPubMed
15. ↵
    Sodickson DK, McKenzie CA, Li W, et al. Contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography with simultaneous acquisition of spatial harmonics: a pilot study. Radiology 2000;217:284–89

    PubMed
16. Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, et al. SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med 1999;42:952–62

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. ↵
    Griswold MA, Jakob PM, Heidemann RM, et al. Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA). Magn Reson Med 2002;47:1202–10

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. ↵
    Leclerc X, Nicol L, Gauvrit JY, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of supraaortic vessels: the effect of voxel size on image quality. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:1021–27

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. ↵
    Nael K, Fenchel M, Salamon N, et al. Three-dimensional cerebral contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance venography at 3.0 Tesla: initial results using highly accelerated parallel acquisition. Invest Radiol 2006;41:763–68

    CrossRefPubMed
20. ↵
    Pruessmann KP. Parallel imaging at high field strength: synergies and joint potential. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2004;15:237–44

    CrossRefPubMed
21. ↵
    Hedley AJ, Molan MP, Hare DL, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis associated with gadolinium-containing contrast media administration in patients with reduced glomerular filtration rate. Nephrology (Carlton) 2007;12:111

    CrossRefPubMed
22. Sadowski EA, Bennett LK, Chan MR, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: risk factors and incidence estimation. Radiology 2007;243:148–57. Epub 2007 Jan 31

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. Perazella MA, Rodby RA. Gadolinium-induced nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with kidney disease. Am J Med 2007;120:561–62

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. ↵
    Thomsen HS, Morcos SK. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and nonionic linear chelates. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:W580 , author reply W581

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. ↵
    Campeau NG, Huston J 3rd, Bernstein MA, et al. Magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 Tesla: initial clinical experience. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2001;12:183–204

    CrossRefPubMed
26. ↵
    Willinek WA, Born M, Simon B, et al. Time-of-flight MR angiography: comparison of 3.0-T imaging and 1.5-T imaging—initial experience. Radiology 2003;229:913–20

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. ↵
    Rinck PA, Muller RN. Field strength and dose dependence of contrast enhancement by gadolinium-based MR contrast agents. Eur Radiol 1999;9:998–1004

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. ↵
    Fink C, Puderbach M, Ley S, et al. Contrast-enhanced three-dimensional pulmonary perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: intraindividual comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M Gd-DTPA at three dose levels. Invest Radiol 2004;39:143–48

    CrossRefPubMed
29. ↵
    Nael K, Fenchel M, Krishnam M, et al. 3.0 Tesla high spatial resolution contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) of the pulmonary circulation: initial experience with a 32-channel phased array coil using a high relaxivity contrast agent. Invest Radiol 2007;42:392–98

    CrossRefPubMed
30. ↵
    Weiger M, Pruessmann KP, Leussler C, et al. Specific coil design for SENSE: a six-element cardiac array. Magn Reson Med 2001;45:495–504

    CrossRefPubMed
31. ↵
    de Zwart JA, Ledden PJ, van Gelderen P, et al. Signal-to-noise ratio and parallel imaging performance of a 16-channel receive-only brain coil array at 3.0 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2004;51:22–26

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. ↵
    Nael K, Villablanca JP, McNamara TO, et al. Supraaortic arteries: contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 3.0 T—highly accelerated parallel acquisition for improved spatial resolution over an extended field of view. Radiology 2007;242:600–09

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
33. ↵
    Nael K, Ruehm SG, Michaely HJ, et al. High spatial-resolution CE-MRA of the carotid circulation with parallel imaging: comparison of image quality between 2 different acceleration factors at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2006;41:391–99

    CrossRefPubMed