In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.
Did you know that your browser is out of date? To get the best experience using our website we recommend that you upgrade to a newer version. Learn more.

We use cookies to optimise the design of this website and make continuous improvement. By continuing your visit, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn more

3T or 1.5T for CMR?

Debate session

Non-invasive Imaging: Magnetic Resonance Imaging


Matthias Friedrich pro 3T
vs
Jeanette Schulz-Menger pro 1.5 T


The debate took place Saturday morning and was well taken by the audience, as this topic is of ongoing interest. Whereas the number of 3T scanners is growing, 1.5T represents the vast majority. In CMR the difference is highly significant as more that 90% of the scans are at 1.5T as published from Oliver Bruder et al (Euro CMR-registry)
3Tesla has the great advantage that the higher field strength comes along with higher resolution and higher SNR. As Matthias Friedrich pointed out this is of high value in research. But furthermore he is convinced, that currently 3T is already ready to for clinical routine. He presented amazing results of tissue differentiation including BOLD-imaging using.
The other side of the coin, as discussed by Jeanette Schulz-Menger is, that the artifact handling is often time consuming at 3T. 3T means B1 and B0 field inhomogeneities inducing artifacts especially in SSFP based images. Furthermore the magnetohydrodynamic effect is more relevant at 3T and the disturbances of the ECG-signal are more pronounced. All clinical indications including cutting edge applications are also possible at 1.5 T. She also pointed out, that further groundbreaking research is also ongoing at 1.5T as presented at ISMRM one week ahead of EuroCMR.
Both speakers agreed that CMR is possible with both field strengths and there is no need to refuse any indication only due to the field strengths.

References


3T or 1.5T for CMR?

The content of this article reflects the personal opinion of the author/s and is not necessarily the official position of the European Society of Cardiology.