Abstract

Objectives

Acoustic noise in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) negatively impacts patients. We assessed a silent gradient coil switched at 20 kHz combined with a T1-weighted magnetisation prepared rapid gradient-echo (MPRAGE) sequence at 7 T.

Methods

Five healthy subjects (21–29 years; three females) without previous 7-T MRI experience underwent both a quiet MPRAGE (Q-MPRAGE) and conventional MPRAGE (C-MPRAGE) sequence twice. Image quality was assessed quantitatively, and qualitatively by two neuroradiologists. Sound level was measured objectively and rated subjectively on a 0 to 10 scale by all subjects immediately following each sequence and after the whole examination (delayed). All subjects also reported comfort level, overall experience and willingness to undergo the sequence again.

Results

Compared to C-MPRAGE, Q-MPRAGE showed higher signal-to-noise ratio (10%; p = 0.012) and lower contrast-to-noise ratio (20%; p < 0.001) as well as acceptable to good image quality. Q-MPRAGE produced 27 dB lower sound level (76 versus 103 dB). Subjects reported lower sound level for Q-MPRAGE both immediate (4.4 ± 1.4 versus 6.4 ± 1.3; p = 0.007) and delayed (4.6 ± 1.4 versus 6.3 ± 1.3; p = 0.005), while they rated comfort level (7.4 ± 1.0 versus 6.1 ± 1.7; p = 0.016) and overall experience (7.6 ± 1.0 versus 6.0 ± 0.9; p = 0.005) higher. Willingness to undergo the sequence again was also higher, however not significantly (8.1 ± 1.0 versus 7.2 ± 1.3; p = 0.066).

Conclusion

Q-MPRAGE using a silent gradient coil reduced sound level by 27 dB compared to C-MPRAGE at 7 T while featuring acceptable-to-good image quality and a quieter and more pleasant subject experience.

Details

Title
Image quality and subject experience of quiet T1-weighted 7-T brain imaging using a silent gradient coil
Author
Jacobs, Sarah M. 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Versteeg, Edwin 1 ; van der Kolk, Anja G. 2 ; Visser, Leonie N. C. 3 ; Oliveira, Ícaro A. F. 4 ; van Maren, Emiel 1 ; Klomp, Dennis W. J. 1 ; Siero, Jeroen C. W. 5 

1  University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Utrecht, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.7692.a) (ISNI:0000000090126352) 
2  University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Utrecht, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.7692.a) (ISNI:0000000090126352); Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Medical Imaging, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.10417.33) (ISNI:0000 0004 0444 9382) 
3  Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Department of Neurology, Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.12380.38) (ISNI:0000 0004 1754 9227); Center for Alzheimer Research, Karolinska Institute, Division of Clinical Geriatrics, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Stockholm, Sweden (GRID:grid.4714.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0626) 
4  Spinoza Centre for Neuroimaging Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.458380.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 0368 8664); VU University, Experimental and Applied Psychology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.12380.38) (ISNI:0000 0004 1754 9227) 
5  University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Utrecht, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.7692.a) (ISNI:0000000090126352); Spinoza Centre for Neuroimaging Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.458380.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 0368 8664) 
Publication year
2022
Publication date
Dec 2022
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V.
e-ISSN
25099280
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-022-00293-x
ProQuest document ID
2708103971
Copyright
© The Author(s) under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology 2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.