Comparison of End-Expiration Versus End-Inspiration Breath-Holds With Respect to Respiratory Motion Artifacts on T1-Weighted Abdominal MRI.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare respiratory motion artifact and diagnostic image quality between end-inspiration and end-expiration breath-holding techniques on unenhanced and contrast-enhanced axial T1-weighted MRI of the liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective observational study included 50 consecutive subjects undergoing axial T1-weighted liver MRI, with unenhanced images acquired with both end-inspiration and end-expiration breath-holding techniques, and with contrast-enhanced images acquired for 47 of the subjects with either the end-inspiration or the end-expiration breath-holding technique. Three radiologists performed blinded independent evaluations of each unenhanced sequence, contrast-enhanced sequence, and subtraction (contrast-enhanced minus unenhanced) image, using a scale ranging from 1 point (denoting nondiagnostic imaging) to 5 points (denoting no artifacts). Blinded side-by-side assessment of each pair of unenhanced sequences was also performed. Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess statistical significance. RESULTS. A significant improvement in motion scores was noted for sequences acquired in end-expiration, compared with those acquired in end-inspiration, for unenhanced sequences (mean, 3.35 vs 2.80; p < 0.00001), contrast-enhanced sequences (mean, 4.02 vs 3.46; p = 0.0003), and subtraction images (mean, 3.67 vs 2.41; p < 0.00001). Severe degradation of image quality or nondiagnostic image quality was noted for 15% of unenhanced images (23/150), 0% of contrast-enhanced images, and 8% (5/63) of subtraction images acquired on end-expiration, whereas it was noted for 36% (54/150) of unenhanced images, 13% (10/78) of contrast-enhanced images, and 59% (46/78) of subtraction images acquired on end-inspiration. When side-by-side assessment of paired unenhanced sequences was performed, images acquired in end-expiration were significantly favored in 59% of paired sequences (88/150) (p < 0.00001), and no difference between images acquired with both breath-hold techniques was noted for 21% (32/150) of paired sequences. CONCLUSION. The end-expiration breath-holding technique leads to significant decreases in respiratory motion artifacts, compared with the end-inspiration technique, on unenhanced and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted liver MRI.