Technical Aspect of Contrast-Enhanced MRA

  • Honglei Zhang
  • Wei Zhang
  • Martin R. Prince


Although MR angiography (MRA) has revolutionized imaging of vascular diseases, the complicated nature of blood/soft tissue contrast mechanisms and the unique artifacts associated with each of the many techniques have made it challenging for referring physicians to become comfortable interpreting noncontrast MRA studies. Fortunately, contrast-enhanced (CE) MRA provides the type of contrast arteriogram that clinicians and radiologists are comfortable interpreting while eliminating the risks of radiation, iodinated contrast, and arterial catheterization (Zhang et al. Semin Roentgenol 44: 84–98, 2009). Just like DSA and CTA, CE-MRA provides reliable enhancement of the arterial lumen during the arterial phase of the Gd bolus injection. Although MR imaging is slower than DSA or CTA, advances in magnet technology, gradient performance, pulse sequence design, and MR contrast agents continue to improve CE-MRA image quality such that it rivals DSA in accuracy for diagnosing vascular anomalies and diseases. This chapter describes the basic principles underlying CE-MRA techniques, approaches to optimizing applications throughout the body, and methods of contrast agent bolus timing.


Contrast Agent Compute Tomographic Angiography Arterial Phase Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis High Injection Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Zhang HL, Zhang W, Juluru K, Prince MR. Body magnetic resonance angiography. Semin Roentgenol. 2009;44:84–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prince MR, Grist TM, Debatin JF. 3D Contrast MR Angiography. New York: Springer, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fain SB, King BF, Breen JF, Kruger DG, Riederer SJ. High-spatial-resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the renal arteries: a prospective comparison with digital subtraction angiography. Radiology. 2001;218:481–490.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hathout GM, Duh MJ, El-Saden SM. Accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in predicting angiographic stenosis of the internal carotid artery: linear regression analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003;24:1747–1756.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schoenberg SO, Rieger J, Weber CH. High-spatial-resolution MR angiography of renal arteries with integrated parallel acquisitions: comparison with digital subtraction angiography and US. Radiology. 2005;235:687–698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung T, Muthupillai Rh. Application of SENSE in clinical pediatric body MR imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;15:187–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fink C, Ley S, Kroeker R, Requardt M, Kauczor HU, Bock M. Time-resolved contrast-enhanced three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography of the chest: combination of parallel imaging with view sharing (TREAT). Invest Radiol. 2005;40:40–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsuchiya K, Honya K, Fujikawa A, Tateishi H, Shiokawa Y. Postoperative assessment of extracranial-intracranial bypass by time-resolved 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiography using parallel imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26:2243–2247.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xu Y, Haacke EM. Partial Fourier imaging in multi-dimensions: a means to save a full factor of two in time. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;14:628–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hu HH, Madhuranthakam AJ, Kruger DG, Glockner JF, Riederer SJ. Combination of 2D sensitivity encoding and 2D partial fourier techniques for improved acceleration in 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Magn Reson Med. 2006;55:16–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zaitsev M ZK, Shah NJ. Shared k-space echo planar imaging with keyhole. Magn Reson Med. 2001;45:109–117.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhu H, Buck DG, Zhang Z, et al. High temporal and spatial resolution 4D MRA using spiral data sampling and sliding window reconstruction. Magn Reson Med. 2004;52:14–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mistretta CA, Wieben O, Velikina J, et al. Highly constrained backprojection for time-resolved MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2006;55:30–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang Y, Johnston DL, Breen JF, et al. Dynamic MR digital subtraction angiography using contrast enhancement, fast data acquisition, and complex subtraction. Magn Reson Med. 1996;36:551–556.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilman AH, Yep TC, Al-Kwifi O. Quantitative evaluation of nonrepetitive phase-encoding orders for first-pass, 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Magn Reson Med. 2001;46:541–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riederer SJ, Fain SB, Kruger DG, Busse RF. Real-time imaging and triggering of 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiograms using MR fluoroscopy. Magma. 1999;8:196–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilman AH, Riederer SJ, King BF, Debbins JP, Rossman PJ, Ehman RL. Fluoroscopically triggered contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MR angiography with elliptical centric view order: application to the renal arteries. Radiology. 1997;205:137–146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldfarb JW, Prasad PV, Griswold MA, Edelman RR. Dynamic three-dimensional magnetic resonance abdominal angiography and perfusion: implementation and preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;11:201–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Watts R, Wang Y, Redd B, et al. Recessed elliptical-centric view-ordering for contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography of the carotid arteries. Magn Reson Med. 2002;48:419–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robert P, Violas X, Santus R, Le Bihan D, Corot C. Optimization of a blood pool contrast agent injection protocol for MR angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;21:611–619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li W, Tutton S, Vu AT, et al. First-pass contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in humans using ferumoxytol, a novel ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (USPIO)-based blood pool agent. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;21:46–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ersoy H, Jacobs P, Kent CK, Prince MR. Blood pool MR angiography of aortic stent-graft endoleak. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:1181–1186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prince MR, Zhang H, Morris M, et al. Incidence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis at two large medical centers. Radiology. 2008;248:807–816.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kramer U, Fenchel M, Laub G, et al. Low-dose, time-resolved, contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography in the assessment of the abdominal aorta and its major branches at 3 Tesla. Acad Radiol. 2010;17:564–576.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Born M, Willinek WA, Gieseke J, von Falkenhausen M, Schild H, Kuhl CK. Sensitivity encoding (SENSE) for contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography of the abdominal arteries. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;22:559–565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kopka L, Vosshenrich R, Rodenwaldt J, Grabbe E. Differences in injection rates on contrast-enhanced breath-hold three-dimensional MR angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol.1998;170:345–348.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prince MR, Chabra SG, Watts R, et al. Contrast material travel times in patients undergoing peripheral MR angiography. Radiology. 2002;224:55–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Turski PA, Korosec FR, Carroll TJ, Willig DS, Grist TM, Mistretta CA. Contrast-Enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the carotid bifurcation using the time-resolved imaging of contrast kinetics (TRICKS) technique. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;12:175–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Naganawa S, Koshikawa T, Fukatsu H, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the carotid artery using 3D time-resolved imaging of contrast kinetics: comparison with real-time fluoroscopic triggered 3D-elliptical centric view ordering. Radiat Med. 2001;19:185–192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Du J, Carroll TJ, Wagner HJ, et al. Time-resolved, undersampled projection reconstruction imaging for high-resolution CE-MRA of the distal runoff vessels. Magn Reson Med. 2002;48:516–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang HL, Ho BY, Chao M, et al. Decreased venous contamination on 3D gadolinium-enhanced bolus chase peripheral MR angiography using thigh compression. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1041–1047.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyWeill Medical College of Cornell UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations