Hyperecho PROPELLER-MRI: Application to rapid high-resolution motion-insensitive T₂ -weighted black-blood imaging of the carotid arterial vessel wall and plaque

Purpose: To demonstrate the usefulness of hyperecho and PROPELLER (HEP) for carotid arterial vessel wall imaging by using a quantitative comparison with conventional methods. PROPELLER is a motion-insensitive turbo spin-echo (TSE) sequence and has recently been utilized in magnetic resonance (MR) plaque imaging instead of double inversion recovery TSE (DIR-TSE). Wider blade-width, higher k-space density, and an improved blood suppression effect result in better image quality. In this study we introduce a new combination of HEP.

Materials and methods: A total of 17 subjects were examined on a 3.0T system. We conducted quantitative comparisons for signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise-ratio, and image sharpness among HEP, DIR-TSE, and conventional PROPELLER (c-PROPELLER). Subsequently, images obtained with DIR-TSE, c-PROPELLER, and HEP were visually evaluated using a three-point scale by two board-certified radiologists.

Results: HEP showed high SNR similar to c-PROPELLER, good T₂ contrast approximating DIR-TSE, and better blood suppression compared with the other two methods (P < 0.05). The image sharpness of HEP (2.55 ± 0.53) was higher than that of DIR-TSE (1.89 ± 0.33) and the absence of ghost or streak artifacts in HEP (2.89 ± 0.33) was better than that in both other methods (2.22 ± 0.83 for DIR-TSE and 2.00 ± 0.50 for c-PROPELLER) (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the degree of blood suppression, particularly in cases of slow or turbulent flow close to the atherosclerotic plaque, was identical for HEP (2.80 ± 0.45) and DIR-TSE (2.80 ± 0.45) but was significantly better than for c-PROPELLER (1.60 ± 0.55) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: This study demonstrates the usefulness of HEP in the carotid arteries. HEP can provide higher-resolution T₂ -weighted black-blood imaging without flow- and/or motion-related artifacts, compared to conventional techniques.

Level of evidence: 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:515-524.