Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
J Am Coll Cardiol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 June 30.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2791396

Will 3T make coronary MR angiography competitive with CT angiography?

Noninvasive coronary angiography requires the ability to image structures as small as 1.5 mm, enveloped in tissue of quite similar composition and rapidly moving in three dimensions within the body. Inaccuracies of measurements on the order of a few hundred microns make the difference between accurate diagnosis of a clinically significant lesion and a false test result. CT and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging currently offer the potential to overcome these challenges in the pursuit of noninvasive assessment of coronary disease. Direct comparison of the two modalities to date has shown the current generation of 64 slice MDCT to provide more accurate coronary imaging [1, 2], albeit at the cost of significant radiation exposure to the patient. [3] Long scan times and operator dependency have also challenged MR. The promise of performing noninvasive angiography free of ionizing radiation has provided a strong and ongoing stimulus to close this gap between MR and CT. Improvements in parallel processing, multichannel receiver coils and the increasingly wide availability of 3 Tesla MRI have each shown promise towards this end.

A doubling in the strength of the MR field from 1.5 to 3.0 T theoretically translates into a doubling of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) obtained. [4] In practice, the obtainable increase in SNR is on the order of 30%. [5] This increase in SNR, in the currency of MR imaging, can subsequently be exchanged for improvements in temporal resolution, spatial resolution or scan time. The demands of coronary MR angiography place each of these at a premium. Increased field strength, however, has notable drawbacks. All MR fields are inhomogeneous to some degree. Inhomogeneity results in imaging artifacts, and these artifacts become more pronounced in stronger magnetic fields. [6] Stronger fields can also result in greater energy absorption by body tissues, limiting the utility of certain imaging sequences.

Much of the recent effort in MR angiography has focused on use of the newest steady-state free procession (SSFP) sequences. [7] SSFP, however, is particularly susceptible to the artifacts generated at higher magnetic fields. A spoiled gradient echo technique, FLASH, first described over 20 years ago [8] has recently shown promise in overcoming these difficulties, with better image quality at 3T compared with the use of SSFP. [9]

In this issue of the Journal, Yang et al (ref) report the results of a single center, prospective trial comparing the accuracy of 3 T whole heart coronary MRA with conventional quantitative coronary angiography in a population with suspected coronary artery disease. They performed whole heart coronary MR angiography using FLASH sequences at 3T, with a 9 minute mean scan time. Yang et al also achieved a 50% reduction of scanning time compared to previously published reports with comparable diagnostic accuracy. [10]

The diagnostic accuracy of the coronary MR angiography technique to detect a patient with a >50% stenosis demonstrated a sensitivity of 88.7%, a specificity of 82.1%, a positive predictive value of 86.5% and a negative predictive value of 92%. These results are tempered by an inability to image more than one third of the participants (34/96) due to ineligibility for MRI or an unsuccessful attempt at scanning. 12% of segments in scanned patients could not be assessed, although 98% of proximal segments were readable. Lack of ability of MR to image all coronary arteries in all patients remains a consistent theme. While this is a solvable problem, manufacturers of MR equipment have not resolved this issue. As a result, coronary MR angiography is currently deployed only at specialized academic centers.

The results obtained in the present study compare favorably with other single-center studies of whole heart coronary MRA at 1.5 T. [1, 10, 11]. These results are also quite similar to the recent experience with 64 slice MDCTA in both single and multi-center studies with similar prevalence -- ~55% --of true coronary disease [12, 13], although far fewer patients were excluded or scan failures in the CT studies.

Correlation with invasive angiography is a necessary initial comparative step for any new noninvasive technique. There is yet a large gap to be closed between catheterization and even the most accurate CT or MR approach, and it is unlikely that this gap will be closed in the foreseeable future. For the present, it is the high negative predictive value of noninvasive angiography that drives its potential clinical utility, particularly in permitting the exclusion of high grade stenosis in proximal vessels. Even using the gold standard invasive approach, however, mere luminal stenosis has limited prognostic potential. [14] There is little reason to believe that a simple lumenographic approach will meet the standards of the current focus on outcomes benefit for imaging studies[15]). A greater potential for noninvasive angiography lies in the ability to assess the burden of atherosclerotic disease in the vessel wall itself, rather than the degree of stenosis imposed by that disease. [16] Use of noninvasive techniques to assess atheroma burden and plaque composition in this manner, although promising in early applications, merits rigorous evaluation for diagnostic and prognostic potential. We look forward to application of techniques like that described here by Yang et al towards this end.


Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributor Information

Christopher T. Sibley, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe St, Carnegie 568, Baltimore MD 21287, Telephone: 410.614.1284, Email: ude.imhj@yelbistc.

David A. Bluemke, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive, Rm 10/ 1C355, Bethesda, MD 20892, Telephone: 301.402.1854, Fax: 301.480.0055, E-mail: vog.hin@dekmeulb.


1. Pouleur ACMD, et al. Direct Comparison of Whole-Heart Navigator-Gated Magnetic Resonance Coronary Angiography and 40- and 64-Slice Multidetector Row Computed Tomography to Detect the Coronary Artery Stenosis in Patients Scheduled for Conventional Coronary Angiography. Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2008;1(2):114–121. [PubMed]
2. Maintz D, et al. Whole-Heart Coronary Magnetic Resonance Angiography: Value for the Detection of Coronary Artery Stenoses in Comparison to Multislice Computed Tomography Angiography. Informa Healthcare. 2007:967–973. [PubMed]
3. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2007;298(3):317–323. [PubMed]
4. Wen H, et al. The Intrinsic Signal-to-Noise Ratio in Human Cardiac Imaging at 1.5, 3, and 4 T. Journal of Magnetic Resonance. 1997;125(1):65–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Sommer T, et al. Coronary MR angiography at 3.0 T versus that at 1.5 T: Initial results in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease. Radiology. 2005;234(3):718–725. [PubMed]
6. Wansapura J, et al. Frequency scouting for cardiac imaging with SSFP at 3 Tesla. Pediatric Radiology. 2006;36(10):1082–1085. [PubMed]
7. McCarthy RM, et al. Three-dimensional breathhold magnetization-prepared TrueFISP: A pilot study for magnetic resonance imaging of the coronary artery disease. Investigative Radiology. 2007;42(10):665–670. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Seino N, et al. Comparison of steady-state free precession (SSFP) and a gradient-echo (GRE) for coronary MR angiography at 3T. Japanese Journal of Clinical Radiology. 2009;54(1):176–181.
10. Jahnke C, et al. Rapid and complete coronary arterial tree visualization with magnetic resonance imaging: Feasibility and diagnostic performance. European Heart Journal. 2005;26(21):2313–2319. [PubMed]
11. Sakuma H, et al. Detection of Coronary Artery Stenosis With Whole-Heart Coronary Magnetic Resonance Angiography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2006;48(10):1946–1950. [PubMed]
12. Raff GL, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2005;46(3):552–557. [PubMed]
13. Miller JM, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(22):2324–36. [PubMed]
14. Little WC, et al. Can coronary angiography predict the site of a subsequent myocardial infarction in patients with mild-to-moderate coronary artery disease? Circulation. 1988;78(5 I):1157–1166. [PubMed]
15. Lauer MS. Discarding Logic: 2008 Ancel Keys Memorial Lecture. 2009;119(11):1533–1537. [PubMed]
16. Macedo R, et al. MRI detects increased coronary wall thickness in asymptomatic individuals: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2008;28(5):1108–1115. [PMC free article] [PubMed]