Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predicting the image quality of respiratory-gated and breath-hold 3D MRCP from the breathing curve: a prospective study

  • Gastrointestinal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the image quality of breath-hold magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (BH-MRCP) and respiratory-gating MRCP (RG-MRCP), and to explore breathing curve–based factors and patient-related data affecting image quality.

Methods

A total of 126 participants who underwent RG-MRCP and BH-MRCP on a 3-T magnetic resonance (MR) scanner were enrolled from May to December 2021. The images were evaluated by three radiologists on a 5-point scale. Respiratory parameters were extracted from the breathing curves. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare the image quality between the two MRCPs. Logistic regression analyzes were performed to identify age, sex, abdominal pain, and breathing predictor variables of better image quality.

Results

BH-MRCP performed better in visualizing intrahepatic bile ducts and overall image quality than RG-MRCP (p < 0.01). Factors predicting relatively good image quality included lower standard deviation of the respiratory amplitude (SDamp)-minimum-peak (odds ratio = 0.16, p < 0.01) for RG-MRCP and lower SDamp (OR = 0.69, p < 0.01) for BH-MRCP.

Conclusions

BH-MRCP had significantly better overall image quality than RG-MRCP. Respiratory conditions exerted a significant impact on MRCP image quality, and parameters derived from the breathing curve could help predict the image quality of both sequences.

Key Points

• Both breath-hold (BH) and respiratory-gating (RG) MRCP demonstrate satisfying image quality.

• BH-GRASE-MRCP is significantly better than RG-MRCP at the group level, but not for every individual.

• Respiratory conditions exert a significant impact on the image quality, and the breathing curve can help predict the image quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

3D:

Three-dimensional

AVG:

Average value

AVGamp :

Average value of the respiratory amplitude in the breathing curve of BH-MRCP

AVGbreath-time :

Average value of the time interval between each pair of trigger points in the breathing curve of RG-MRCP

BH-MRCP:

Breath-hold MRCP

BMI:

Body mass index

BSSFP:

Balanced steady-state free precession

CE:

Conformite Europeenne

CI:

Confidence interval

FSE:

Fast spin-echo

GRASE:

Gradient and spin-echo

MIP:

Maximum intensity projection

MRCP:

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography

OR:

Odds ratio

RG:

Respiratory-gating

RG-MRCP:

Respiratory-gating MRCP

SD:

Standard deviation

SDamp :

Standard deviation of the respiratory amplitude in the breathing curve of BH-MRCP

SDamp-maximum-peak:

Standard deviation of the respiratory amplitude at the maximum peak between each pair of trigger points in the breathing curve of RG-MRCP

SDamp-minimum-peak:

Standard deviation of the respiratory amplitude at the minimum peak between each pair of trigger points in the breathing curve of RG-MRCP

SDamp-trigger-point:

Standard deviation of the respiratory amplitude at the trigger points in the breathing curve of RG-MRCP

SDbreath-time :

Standard deviation of the time interval between each pair of trigger points in the breathing curve of RG-MRCP

SPSS:

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

References

  1. Anupindi SA, Victoria T (2008) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: techniques and applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 16(3):453–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zins M (2018) Breath-holding 3D MRCP: the time is now? Eur Radiol 28(9):3719–3720

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Itatani R, Namimoto T, Kajihara H et al (2013) Preoperative evaluation of the cystic duct for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: comparison of navigator-gated prospective acquisition correction- and conventional respiratory-triggered techniques at free-breathing 3D MR cholangiopancreatography. Eur Radiol 23(7):1911–1918

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ehman RL, McNamara MT, Pallack M, Hricak H, Higgins CB (1984) Magnetic resonance imaging with respiratory gating: techniques and advantages. AJR Am J Roentgenol 143(6):1175–1182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mahalingam N, Ralli GP, Trout AT, Dillman JR (2022) Comparison of quantitative 3D magnetic resonance cholangiography measurements obtained using three different image acquisition methods. Abdom Radiol (NY) 47(1):196–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yoon JH, Lee SM, Kang HJ et al (2017) Clinical feasibility of 3-dimensional magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography using compressed sensing: comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance. Invest Radiol 52(10):612–619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yoen H, Lee JM, Lee SM et al (2021) Comparisons between image quality and diagnostic performance of 2D- and breath-hold 3D magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at 3T. Eur Radiol 31(11):8399–8407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Blaise H, Remen T, Ambarki K et al (2021) Comparison of respiratory-triggered 3D MR cholangiopancreatography and breath-hold compressed-sensing 3D MR cholangiopancreatography at 1.5 T and 3 T and impact of individual factors on image quality. Eur J Radiol 142:109873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen Z, Sun B, Xue Y et al (2021) Comparing compressed sensing breath-hold 3D MR cholangiopancreatography with two parallel imaging MRCP strategies in main pancreatic duct and common bile duct. Eur J Radiol 142:109833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Morimoto D, Hyodo T, Kamata K et al (2020) Navigator-triggered and breath-hold 3D MRCP using compressed sensing: image quality and method selection factor assessment. Abdom Radiol (NY) 45(10):3081–3091

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nam JG, Lee JM, Kang HJ et al (2018) GRASE revisited: breath-hold three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography using a gradient and spin echo (GRASE) technique at 3T. Eur Radiol 28(9):3721–3728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chu ML, Chien CP, Wu WC, Chung HW (2019) Gradient- and spin-echo (GRASE) MR imaging: a long-existing technology that may find wide applications in modern era. Quant Imaging Med Surg 9(9):1477–1484

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hasse FC, Selmi B, Albusaidi H et al (2021) Balanced steady-state free precession MRCP is a robust alternative to respiration-navigated 3D turbo-spin-echo MRCP. BMC Med Imaging 21:10

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Schreiber-Zinaman J, Rosenkrantz AB (2017) Frequency and reasons for extra sequences in clinical abdominal MRI examinations. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42(1):306–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zaitsev M, Maclaren J, Herbst M (2015) Motion artifacts in MRI: a complex problem with many partial solutions. J Magn Reson Imaging 42(4):887–901

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tokoro H, Yamada A, Suzuki T et al (2020) Usefulness of breath-hold compressed sensing accelerated three-dimensional magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) added to respiratory-gating conventional MRCP. Eur J Radiol 122:108765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. He M, Xu J, Sun Z et al (2020) Comparison and evaluation of the efficacy of compressed SENSE (CS) and gradient- and spin-echo (GRASE) in breath-hold (BH) magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). J Magn Reson Imaging 51(3):824–832

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Glenn A, Trout AT, Kocaoglu M et al (2022) Patient- and examination-related predictors of 3D MRCP image quality in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 218(5):910–916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ikeno H, Kobayashi S, Kozaka K et al (2020) Relationship between the degree of abdominal wall movement and the image quality of contrast-enhanced MRI: semi-quantitative study especially focused on the occurrence of transient severe motion artifact. Jpn J Radiol 38(2):165–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhu L, Wu X, Sun Z et al (2018) Compressed-sensing accelerated 3-dimensional magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: application in suspected pancreatic diseases. Invest Radiol 53(3):150–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Taron J, Weiss J, Notohamiprodjo M et al (2018) Acceleration of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography using compressed sensing at 1.5 and 3 T: a clinical feasibility study. Invest Radiol 53(11):681–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Robson PM, Madhuranthakam AJ, Dai W, Pedrosa I, Rofsky NM, Alsop DC (2009) Strategies for reducing respiratory motion artifacts in renal perfusion imaging with arterial spin labeling. Magn Reson Med 61(6):1374–1387

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Akoglu H (2018) User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med 18(3):91–93

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Lin Z, Zhang X, Guo L et al (2019) Clinical feasibility study of 3D intracranial magnetic resonance angiography using compressed sensing. J Magn Reson Imaging 50(6):1843–1851

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yoshida M, Nakaura T, Inoue T et al (2018) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with GRASE sequence at 3.0T: does it improve image quality and acquisition time as compared with 3D TSE? Eur Radiol 28(6):2436–2443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tsurusaki M, Sofue K, Onishi H et al (2021) Predictive factors of truncation artifacts in the arterial phase of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI: a nationwide multicenter study. Jpn J Radiol 39(2):165–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Harder F, Lohöfer FK, Kaissis GA et al (2019) Camera-based respiratory triggering improves the image quality of 3D magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Eur J Radiol 120:108675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yoon JH, Yu MH, Chang W et al (2017) Clinical feasibility of free-breathing dynamic T1-weighted imaging with gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging using a combination of variable density sampling and compressed sensing. Invest Radiol 52(10):596–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tajima T, Akai H, Sugawara H et al (2021) Breath-hold 3D magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at 1.5 T using a deep learning-based noise-reduction approach: comparison with the conventional respiratory-triggered technique. Eur J Radiol 144:109994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sheng RF, Zheng LY, Jin KP et al (2021) Single-breath-hold T2WI liver MRI with deep learning-based reconstruction: a clinical feasibility study in comparison to conventional multi-breath-hold T2WI liver MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 81:75–81

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Yanqun Teng for her work on MRI technique support and Difei Lu and Hefei Wang for their kind help during the manuscript preparation.

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Peking University First Hospital, No. 8, Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China

    Ke Wang, Xinying Li, Jing Liu, Xiaochao Guo, Wei Li, Xinming Cao, Junzhe Yang, Xiaoying Wang, Jianxing Qiu & Naishan Qin

  2. Central Research Institute, United Imaging Healthcare, 2258 Chengbei Rd., Jiading District, Shanghai, 201807, China

    Ke Xue & Yongming Dai

Authors
  1. Ke Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xinying Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jing Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaochao Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wei Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xinming Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Junzhe Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ke Xue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yongming Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Xiaoying Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jianxing Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Naishan Qin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jianxing Qiu or Naishan Qin.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jianxing Qiu.

Conflict of interest

Two authors (Ke Xue and Yongming Dai) are employees of United Imaging Healthcare. Otherwise, the authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Statistical analyzes were performed by one of the authors (Ke Wang) under the guidance of statistical office at Peking University First Hospital.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• cross-sectional study

• performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, K., Li, X., Liu, J. et al. Predicting the image quality of respiratory-gated and breath-hold 3D MRCP from the breathing curve: a prospective study. Eur Radiol 33, 4333–4343 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09293-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09293-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation