High Field MRI

Outline

•  Introduction
•  Expected Bene0its
v  Signal-‐to-‐noise ratio (SNR)
v  Spectral resolution
•  Technical Challenges
v  B1+ inhomogeneity
v  RF heating & SAR
v  System complexity
•  Pros vs Cons
1/60
What is “High Field MRI”?
•  Main magnetic 0ield strength ≥ 3 Tesla
ω0 = γ B0
Main magnetic 0ield
f0 = γ B0
γ
γ = = 42.56 MHz T-‐1
Larmor frequency 2π
( γ = gyromagnetic ratio)
B0 = 3T à f0 ≈ 128 MHz B0 = 4.7T à f0 = 200 MHz
B0 = 7T à f0 ≈ 300 MHz B0 = 9.4T à f0 = 400 MHz
2/60 Slide courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi

The Evolution of High Field MRI*
1990
4T
whole body
First whole body 4T magnet developed by Oxford Magnet Technology (now
Siemens Magnet Technology) and installed as part of a Phillips medical system
at the University of Alabama. University of Minnesota (Siemens) and NIH
(General Electric) received one shortly after.
•  multiple engineering problems
•  signi0icant technological developments before obtaining useful images
* Adapted from book ‘Ultra High-‐0ield Magnetic Resonance Imaging’
by Robitaille PM and Berliner LJ (2006)
3/60
Slide courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi
The Evolution of High Field MRI
1990 1991
4T
whole body
3T clinical
scanner
First 3T “clinical” research system (80 cm bore) developed by Magnex Scienti0ic
(now Agilent) and installed at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.
•  more compact (smaller bore) thanks actively shielded gradient coils
•  signi0icantly less expensive
•  easy to site
•  engineering problems much more manageable
1990 1991 1997
4T 8T
whole body whole body
3T clinical
scanner
First whole body 8T magnet (80 cm bore) developed by Magnex Scienti0ic (now
Agilent) and installed at Ohio State University. à today it is in the storage

~ 40 high 0ield whole-‐body magnets installed worldwide (thirty 3T and ten 4T)
and operated as pure clinical research systems

1990 1991 1997 1998
4T 8T
whole body whole body
3T clinical 7T
scanner whole body
First whole body 7T magnet (90 cm bore) developed by Magnex Scienti0ic (now
Agilent) and installed at the University of Minnesota.

GE had begun to deliver a second-‐generation 3T Signa™ system that was close
to being a routine clinical product (94 cm bore, actively shielded 3T magnet and
a fully featured Signa™ clinical console)

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999
4T 8T 3T FDA
whole body whole body certi0ied
3T clinical 7T
scanner whole body
The 3T system was formally FDA certi0ied, eight years after the 0irst 3T magnet
was installed in a clinical research site

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-‐2003
4T 8T 3T FDA
whole body whole body certi0ied
3T clinical 7T 3 more 7T
scanner whole body installed
Three more 7T systems were installed:

•  Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston (USA)
•  National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda (USA)
•  Niigata University (Japan)

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-‐2003 2004
4T 8T 3T FDA 9.4T
whole body whole body certi0ied whole body
3T clinical 7T 3 more 7T
scanner whole body installed
First whole body 9.4T magnet (80 cm bore)

developed by General Electric and installed at the
University of Illinois in Chicago for primary
application of sodium imaging.

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-‐2003 2004 2011
4T 8T 3T FDA 9.4T
whole body whole body certi0ied whole body
3T clinical 7T 3 more 7T 11.74T
scanner whole body installed head only
11.74T head only (68 cm bore) magnet

(Agilent/Siemens) was installed October 2011
at NIH
Magnet quenched from full 0ield December
2011 during NEMA acoustics tests at NIH
Current status: Under repair
10/60
1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-‐2003 2004 2011 20??
4T 8T 3T FDA 9.4T 11.74T

whole body whole body certi0ied whole body whole body
The French Atomic Energy Commission

(CEA) decided to design an 11.74 Tesla
(~ 234,000 times the Earth’s 0ield) MRI
for human studies (90 cm bore) as part of
the NeuroSpin project.
1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-‐2003 2004 2011 20??
4T 8T 3T FDA 9.4T 11.74T

whole body whole body certi0ied whole body whole body
Center for Biomedical Imaging (UHF):

•  128-‐channel 3T Siemens Trio
•  64-‐channel 3T Siemens Skyra with 2Ch pTx
•  32-‐channel 7T Siemens Magnetom with 8 & 32 Tx channels
•  3T Siemens Biograph mMR MR/PET

Ultra-‐high field MRI: Benefits vs Challenges
•  Expected Bene0its, increase in
v  Signal-‐to-‐Noise Ratio (SNR)
•  Increase image resolution & acquisition speed
–  More details & minimize motion
•  Non-‐proton MRI: Sodium (23Na), Phosphorus(31P) Last week
MSK group
•  Identi0ication of glutamine (Gln)/glutamate(Glu)
v  Susceptibilityà new contrast
v  B1+, transmit magnetic 0ield, inhomogeneity
•  Image contrast and SNR inhomogeneity
•  Diminishes the quality and diagnostic value
v  Speci0ic Absorption Rate (SAR)
•  Patient safety limits: dangerous local hot spots
v  System: magnet, pTx hardware…
v  Susceptibility à decrease in T2*
13/60
Outline
•  Introduction
•  Pros vs Cons
14/60
Signal to Noise RaBo (SNR): brief revisit
signal
SNR= B0: main magnetic 0ield strength
standard deviation of the noise 3T,7T…
3 (receive)∗
emf ≈ iω ∫ d r M (r, t )B
0 (r )⊥ ⊥ γ: gyromagnetic constant
excitation
volume
signal ~ {ω0=γB0 & transverse magnetization(MT)} B02
2
noise~ σ coil 2
+ system + σ sample ~ aB01/2 + bB02 ~M0~ B0 SNR~ B0
std of noise ~ {ω0=γB0 assuming sample noise is dominant}
SNR increases ’nearly’ linearly with field strength
Increase the image resolution à more details, better localization

Increase acquisition speed à maximize patient comfort, minimizes motion
15/60
SNR: 7T vs 3T in hip*
GRE Image
Technical Challenge
Flip Angle Map B1+ inhomogeneity
Raw SNR Map
*Deniz CM. et al. (2012): MRM

16/60
SNR analysis between 3T & 7T
RF shimming
for 7T only
SNR normalization compensates
• Spatial 0lip angle variations
High resolution GRE

images (low 0lip angle)
*Raw SNR maps
Normalized
Noise image ( short TR, SNR maps
no RF excitation)
sin(θ)
Flip angle map of the GRE

acquisition
*Kellmann P. et al. (2005): MRM 54: 1439-47

17/60
SNR Results
•  SNR analysis indicated 2.33 times greater normalized SNR at 7T

compared to 3T
v  Shows the benefits of higher fields for hip imaging
v  The difference in receive coil structure may effect SNR comparison
18/60
SNR Benefit: ex-‐vivo pathology or in-‐vivo imaging?
A B
Susceptibility Weighted Imaging (SWI): exploits the susceptibility differences between
tissues using phase imagesà sensitive to venous blood and iron storage
Yulin Ge, MD
19/60 Slide courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi & Daniel Sodickson

7T MRI: A Powerful View of The Brain
Yulin Ge, MD

High-‐ResoluBon Knee Imaging
55 year old male -‐ Healthy 51 year old male -‐ Osteoarthri4s
Diffusely thinned
Normal thickness
Irregular surface
Smooth surface
•  Fat-suppressed 3D Flash, TR/TE = 26/5.1 ms, 0.23 x 0.23 x 1 mm3,

60 partitions, acquisition time 6:58, QED knee coil with 28 receive elements
Gregory Chang, MD
Imaging Osteoporosis
55 year old female -‐ Healthy 76 year old female -‐ Osteoporosis
•  3D Flash TR/TE = 20/5.1 ms

•  0.23 x 0.23 x 1.0 mm3, 80 partitions, acquisition time 7:09
Gregory Chang, MD
Imaging the Human Hippocampus
Control
Patient
Oded Gonen, PhD

3T vs. 7T
3T TSE, 0.7 x 0.7 x 5.0 mm3 7T TSE, 0.5 x 0.5 x 3.5 mm3
30 slices, acquisition time 3:16 40 slices, acquisition time 3:06
Hip imaging at 7T*
Bone microarchitecture images are shown for intermediate-‐weighted FSE and T1-‐
weighted FLASH sequences in A and B, respectively. Cartilage images are shown
for fat suppressed FSE image in C and for water excitation FLASH image in D.
Microarchitecture A B
Hip Bone
C D
Cartilage
Hip
FSE FLASH
26/60 *Deniz CM. et al (2013) ISMRM Ultra High Field Workshop
Outline
•  Introduction
•  Pros vs Cons
27/60
Spectral ResoluBon
•  At low 0ield, the concentrations of glutamine (Gln)
and glutamate(Glu) are often combined as Glx = Glu +
Gln. àThis could mask relative changes in Glu and
Gln.
•  There are techniques to overcome this problem
v  often time consuming
v  may result in the loss of other metabolite signals which
may be of interest
B0
28/60 Schematics: courtesy of Daniel Sodickson

Spectral ResoluBon (Glu & Gln)
29/60 http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/research/airc/faculty_choi.htm#
Outline
•  Introduction
•  Pros vs Cons
30/60
Technical Challenges – B1+ inhomogeneity
•  RF EM Fields and Tissue: Electrical Properties of
Muscle Tissue vs. Frequency
σ increases and εr decreases with increasing frequency of the applied 0ield
At 300MHz (7T), one wavelength in tissue is on the order of 0.1m vs ~1m in vacuum
RF wavelength within tissue depends on tissue’s electric properties σ and εr
Courtesy of Chris Collins: from Lecture 1 Jan 15th 2013

31/60
Center-‐bright ArBfact Due to Interference
35 cm sphere of saline
125 MHz (3T)
T/R Surface Coil(s)
Coaxial with Sphere
λ/2

32/60
Head in a Birdcage Coil (ConstrucBve Interference)
64 MHz 175 MHz 260 MHz 345 MHz

B1+
(Scale Max.
=5µT)
SI
(Scale Max.
=1.0)
SAR
(Scale Max.
=3xAve.)
Value
Scale Max.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
from Tesla to frequencyω0=γB0
33/60
RF Shimming1 Parallel RF ExcitaBon2,3
•  Common RF waveform •  Distinct RF waveform
•  Distinct but time-‐ constant •  Distinct and time-‐varying
amplitudes and phases for amplitudes and phases for
each element each element
No
No Sshim
him Phase
Phase Oonly
nly shim
RF Shim
•  Higher degrees of freedom
*
in RF design process
Next lecture by Martijn Cloos
Prostate region
a1 (t) (t)
RF , ϕ1 (t) a 5(t) , ϕ 5 RF
a2, ϕ2
a3, ϕ3 a2(t), ϕ2(t) a6(t), ϕ6(t)
a1, ϕ1 RF RF
a4, ϕ4
RF a3(t), ϕ3(t) a7(t), ϕ7(t)
a8, ϕ8
a5, ϕ5 RF RF
a7, ϕ7
a6, ϕ6 RF (t) a8 (t) ϕ RF
t) ϕ 4 , 8 (t)
a 4( ,
1-Hoult D., (2000) JMRI: p46-67 2-Katscher U. et al., (2003) MRM: p144-50
3-Zhu Y. (2004) MRM: p775-84 Schematics: Courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi
34/60
* Volunteer study at NYU using 8Ch Tx array at 7T
RF shimming capability at NYU
•  TimTx Trueform (2 Ch RF •  TimTx array step 2 (8 Ch RF
excitation from body coil) excitation from local coils)
Magnetom 7T
Both system are research only and has built-in RF shimming software
à go play with themJ
35/60
RF shimming example at 3T (Willinek WA et al. Radiology 2010)
•  Two radiologists rated the images with 5 point scale for liver pelvis and 4
point scale for spine
v  5(4): Excellent diagnostic quality
v  1: Non diagnostic image quality
36/60
RF shimming example at 7T
** No Shim Phase Only RF Shim
Prostate region
***
****
The 16-element optimization of gradient echo

signal intensity maps of single slices and whole
brain at 300 MHz using EM field simulations.
(search algorithm)
*-Mao W et al.,(2006) MRM 56: 918–922 ***-Metzger GJ et al. (2008) MRM

37/60
**-Volunteer study at NYU using 8Ch Tx array at 7T ****-Deniz CM et al (2012) MRM
RF Shim GUI (standalone program)
Available with sample datasets

http://cai2r.net/resources/software/parallel-rf-transmission-rf-shimming-gui
38/60
Side Note: High field benefits for parallel MRI
SNR (Normalized)
1
1.5
SNR [a.u.]
1 0.5
0.5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Acceleration Acceleration
•  Increased •  Slower decline

baseline SNR with acceleration
Ohliger M. et. al., (2003) MRM 50: 1018

High Field MRI and Parallel Imaging
•  High 0ield strength improves parallel MRI

v  Increased SNR
v  Increased feasible accelerations (increase in coil sensitivity difference)
•  Parallel imaging improves high 0ield MRI

v  Reduced susceptibility artifact
v  Improved RF homogeneity (via parallel transmission)
v  Reduced SAR (via parallel transmission and reception)
•  Practical developments in parallel reception and transmission

are crucial for high 0ield MRI to deliver on its promise

Outline
•  Introduction
•  Pros vs Cons
41/60
MagneBc (B1+) vs Electric (E) Field
Flip angle
RF Object MR signal
(degrees)
B0: main magnetic 0ield (T)

B1+ 0ield (T) " In MRI
û
Speci0ic Absorption
Rate (SAR, W/kg) Tissue heating
Concomitant E 0ield (V/m)
r: spatial location
SAR is the radiofrequency (RF) energy σ: conductivity
absorption rate by the body ρ: sample density
Limited by FDA
Field maps are courtesy of Bei Zhang

42/60
RF Energy Causes HeaBng in MRI
Heat generated
Due to concomitant E 0ield
Bio-Heat Equation: by metabolism
∂T
ρC = ∇ • (k∇T ) + SARρ +[− ρblood wCblood (T − Tcore )] + Qm
∂t
Blood perfusion
(cooling effect)
T: temperature
ρ: material density
C: heat capacity
k: thermal conductivity
w: perfusion by blood
43/60
RF energy caused heaBng and its assesment
Oh S. et al.,

2012 ISMRM
e-‐poster 3863
Proton Resonance Frequency (PRF)*:

Φ1, Φ2: pre and post heat GRE phase images
TE: echo time
φ2 (r, t ) − φ1 (r, t )
ΔT (r, t ) = γ: gyromagnetic ratio
αγ B0TE B0: main magnetic 0ield strength
α: temperature dependency of the chemical
shift (~ 0.01 PPM/°C)
*-Ishihara Y. et al (1995) MRM

44/60
Technical Challenges – SAR: RF heaBng increases with B0
•  If B1 and tissue electrical properties are independent of
frequency, we can expect SAR to increase with B02
•  Citing wavelength effects, sometimes it is stated that local

SAR becomes a bigger issue as B0 increases (in ultra-‐high
0ield),
v  SAR distribution is strongly dependent on distribution of tissue
properties
v  Some (not all) numerical simulations show an increase in
(max local SAR)/(whole body SAR) with B0
This metric is used to limit RF deposition via relatively easy power measurements
It is also known as k-factor in Siemens coil files
45/60
SAR DistribuBon with B0 in Simple and Complex Models
200MHz 300MHz 340MHz

xy plane SAR(W/Kg) xy plane SAR(W/Kg) xy plane SAR(W/Kg)
20 20 20
40 40 40
Axial
60 60 60
80 80 80
100 100 100
120 120 120
140 yz plane SAR(W/Kg) 140 yz plane SAR(W/Kg) 140 yz plane SAR(W/Kg)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

20 20 20
40 40 40
Sagittal
60 60 60
80 80 80
100 100 100
120 120 120
140 zx plane SAR(W/Kg) 140 zx plane SAR(W/Kg) 140 zx plane SAR(W/Kg)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

20 20 20
40 40 40
Coronal
60 60 60
80 80 80
100 100 100
120 120 120
140 140 140
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
•  SAR distribution depends largely on sample geometry,

heterogeneity, and complexity.
•  Maximum 1g SAR levels tend to be higher in models of human
geometries than in homogeneous models for a given magnetic
0ield strength (factor of 2 to 3)*
*- Collins et al., MRM 40:847, 1998
46/60
Regulatory Limits on RF HeaBng in MRI

1) Temperature
Temperature increase is the primary and well known
concern of safety in RF regime (3 kHz to 300 GHz)
International Electrotechnical Commission IEC 60601-‐2-‐33, 3rd Edition, 2010, p. 34
47/60
RF Safety Assurance by PredicBng and/or Monitoring
Temperature in MRI(?)
•  Core body temperature can be monitored with thermometers
or other probes
•  Local temperature can be monitored with MR-‐based methods
•  Local temperature can be predicted with computer models
(FDTD, FIT simulations) considering the Maxwell equations
and bioheat equations
•  Temperature monitoring and prediction is generally not
performed in MRI due to challenges related to patient comfort,
imaging time, and complexity.
48/60
2) Specific energy Absorption Rate (SAR)
49/60
2) Specific energy Absorption Rate (SAR)
Local SAR limits the maximum RF power to any 10g of tissue
!! Local coils are also subject to limits on whole-‐body SAR
50/60
IEC CategorizaBon of RF Coils
•  Volume Excitation Coils – designed to produce a

homogeneous excitation within a volume
v  Body coils, head coils, extremity coils, …
•  Local Excitation Coils – designed to excite a localized area

v  Single channel loop coil
•  Multi-‐channel Transmit Coils have attributes of local and

volume coils – appropriate control of SAR depends on use
51/60
PredicBng and Monitoring SAR
•  Whole-‐body, Head, or Partial-‐body average SAR can be

predicted or measured as the RF power transmitted
through the coil divided by the mass of the exposed region
of the subject à relatively easyJ

•  Local SAR can be calculated as σ|E|2/2ρ where
v  σ is electric conductivity (S/m)
v  ρ is material density (kg/m3)
v  E is peak RF electric 0ield magnitude (V/m)
52/60
Reducing SAR in Single-‐Channel Coils
•  SAR is proportional to the time-‐average RF energy
•  For a given pulse duration, SAR∝B12

v  Reducing 0lip angle will reduce SAR
•  For a given Flip angle, SAR∝(pulse duration)-‐1
•  For a given set of RF pulses, SAR∝(TR)-‐1
53/60
PredicBng and Monitoring SAR for Parallel Transmit Coils
•  Whole-‐body, Head, or Partial-‐body average SAR can be
measured approximately by*
v  1) determining forward and re0lected power through each
channel (with directional couplers on each channel),
v  2) using this and drive con0iguration to determine the total
power transmitted, and
v  3) dividing by mass of subject or exposed portion thereof.

•  Local SAR prediction for pTx is an area of rapid
development: currently it is mainly based on EM Pield
simulations

Reducing SAR using pTx is shown to be feasible**

Handling SAR in pTx setting à Next lecture by Martijn Cloos
* Zhu Y et al., Magn Reson Med 2012;67:1367-1378

** Zhu Y (2004) MRM 51
54/60
RF shimming example for SAR reducBon (Willinek
Single
WA et al. Radiology 2010)
•  Two radiologists rated the images with 5 point scale for liver pelvis and 4
No signi0icant
No signi0icant
difference
difference
in in
point scale
image image
quality
qb for
uality spine
ut shorter
but 33% shorter
5(4):
imaging
v imaging Excellent
(50% for T2w, d1iagnostic
8% for quality
T1w)
v  1: Non diagnostic image quality
Dual
55/60
Outline
•  Introduction
•  Pros vs Cons
56/60
Technical Challenges – System PerspecBve
7T (90 cm bore) magnet Shielding installation for a 9.4T (65

system in test cm bore) magnet

Magnet Design and ConstrucBon for B0 > 3T
•  Geometrical issues
v  High homogeneity over imaging volume (~45 cm diameter)
v  several solenoid wounds for corrections
•  Mechanical issues
v  Large forces and stresses on the conductors and magnet
formers (mostly between solenoidal windings)
àavoid high stresses in compensation coils (FEM
simulations)
•  Conductors
v  Niobium-‐Titanium superconductors (NbTi) at 4.2 K for B0 ≤
9.4T
àneed liquid helium

SuperconducBng wire: CriBcal parameters
•  Critical temperature
•  Critical magnetic 0ield
•  Critical current density
59/60
NbTi – based superconducBng wires
•  NbTi conductors (many 0ine 0ilaments of a niobium-‐titanium (NbTi) alloy
embedded in a copper matrix)
•  The most commonly used (developed since the sixties)
•  Tc (0T) = 9.5K ; Tc (11T) = 4.1K
•  Feasible industrially (>2000 tons/year)
•  Competitive cost (around 300 $/km, depending on wire diameter)
•  Easy to handle and no special precautions for use (like copper wire)
-  Helium cryogenic: relatively high refrigeration cost
Assuming 500A in wire and 1m magnet

(solenoid) diameter, producing a 3T 0ield
would require about 4775 turns, or about
15km of wire. (4775x500A=2.4MA)
Cross-section of
superconducting wire
showing NbTi filaments in
Cu matrix
60/60
Magnet Design and ConstrucBon for B0 > 3T
•  Energy management
v  ~ 80 MJ for 7T whole body magnet systems
àmust be dissipated safely in emergency situations
•  Cryostats
v  Magnet immersed in a reservoir of liquid helium at 4.2K
à avoid leakage
•  Gradient coils
v  Acoustic noise from vibration caused by Lorentz forces
à safety issues


Magnet Shielding at High Field
•  Stray (fringe) 0ield of ~ 5 Gauss several meters from
magnet center
v  Hazard to people with pacemakers
v  Affect instrumentation (PC, X-‐Rays, etc.)
•  Passive shielding à Actively shielded 7Ts are available

now
v  Extra cost, volume, weight are too high for active shielding
v  ~ 200-‐500 tons of steel needed to halve the 5 Gauss
contour
v  Same center for shield and magnet to balance forces (à
shield will pass 0loor level)
•  Effect on magnet homogeneity
v  Need to shim with steel plates placed in slots outside the
bore
SuperconducBng StaBc Magnets
•  Several miles of superconducting wire

wound in a pattern to produce a very
homogeneous 0ield in a 40cm diameter
spherical region
•  Outer windings with current in the

opposite direction provide “active
shielding,” serving to help contain the
strong magnetic 0ield
•  Superconducting wire is kept below 4K

with liquid Helium. An outer container of
Liquid Nitrogen is used to slow the loss of
liquid helium
63/60
Outline
•  Introduction
•  Pros vs Cons
64/60
Pros and Cons of High Field MRI
•  Pros
v  ↑ SNR (~ B0, variable) à ↑ resolution, ↑ speed, …
v  ↑ spectral resolution
v  ↑ susceptibility
•  Cons
v  ↑ SAR (~ B02, variable) à limits on speed, 0lip angle, …
v  ↑ RF variability à ↓ homogeneity (transmit & receive)
v  ↑ B0 variability à ↑ shimming challenges, ↓ T2*, ↑ phase-‐
related artifacts
v  ↑ susceptibility
v  ↑ bulk, cost, etc.
65/60
Thank you for your afenBon 

High Field MRI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Field MRI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Outline

v Spectral resolution

v RF heating & SAR

v System complexity

• Pros vs Cons

2/60 Slide courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi

1990 1991 1997

5/60 Slide courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi

1990 1991 1997 1998

6/60 Slide courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999

7/60 Slide courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-­‐2003

Three more 7T systems were installed:

8/60 Slide courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-­‐2003 2004

First whole body 9.4T magnet (80 cm bore)

9/60 Slide courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-­‐2003 2004 2011

11.74T head only (68 cm bore) magnet

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-­‐2003 2004 2011 20??

4T 8T 3T FDA 9.4T 11.74T

The French Atomic Energy Commission

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-­‐2003 2004 2011 20??

4T 8T 3T FDA 9.4T 11.74T

Center for Biomedical Imaging (UHF):

12/60 Slide courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi

v Spectral resolution

v RF heating & SAR

v System complexity

• Pros vs Cons

SNR increases ’nearly’ linearly with field strength

Increase the image resolution à more details, better localization

Raw SNR Map

*Deniz CM. et al. (2012): MRM

High resolution GRE

*Raw SNR maps

Flip angle map of the GRE

*Kellmann P. et al. (2005): MRM 54: 1439-47

• SNR analysis indicated 2.33 times greater normalized SNR at 7T

19/60 Slide courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi & Daniel Sodickson

20/60 Slide courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi & Daniel Sodickson

• Fat-suppressed 3D Flash, TR/TE = 26/5.1 ms, 0.23 x 0.23 x 1 mm3,

• 3D Flash TR/TE = 20/5.1 ms

Oded Gonen, PhD

v Spectral resolution

v RF heating & SAR

v System complexity

• Pros vs Cons

28/60 Schematics: courtesy of Daniel Sodickson

v Spectral resolution

v RF heating & SAR

v System complexity

• Pros vs Cons

Courtesy of Chris Collins: from Lecture 1 Jan 15th 2013

Courtesy of Chris Collins: from Lecture 1 Jan 15th 2013

64 MHz 175 MHz 260 MHz 345 MHz

The 16-element optimization of gradient echo

*-Mao W et al.,(2006) MRM 56: 918–922 ***-Metzger GJ et al. (2008) MRM

Available with sample datasets

• Increased • Slower decline

39/60 Slide courtesy of Riccardo Lattanzi & Daniel Sodickson

• High 0ield strength improves parallel MRI

• Parallel imaging improves high 0ield MRI

v  Spectral resolution

v  RF heating & SAR

v  System complexity

•  Pros vs Cons

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-‐2003

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-‐2003 2004

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-‐2003 2004 2011

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-‐2003 2004 2011 20??

1990 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000-‐2003 2004 2011 20??

v  Spectral resolution

v  RF heating & SAR

v  System complexity

•  Pros vs Cons

•  SNR analysis indicated 2.33 times greater normalized SNR at 7T

•  Fat-suppressed 3D Flash, TR/TE = 26/5.1 ms, 0.23 x 0.23 x 1 mm3,

•  3D Flash TR/TE = 20/5.1 ms

v  Spectral resolution

v  RF heating & SAR

v  System complexity

•  Pros vs Cons

v  Spectral resolution

v  RF heating & SAR

v  System complexity

•  Pros vs Cons

•  Increased •  Slower decline

•  High 0ield strength improves parallel MRI

•  Parallel imaging improves high 0ield MRI

•  Practical developments in parallel reception and transmission

v  Spectral resolution

v  RF heating & SAR

v  System complexity

•  Pros vs Cons

•  Citing wavelength effects, sometimes it is stated that local

•  SAR distribution depends largely on sample geometry,

•  Volume Excitation Coils – designed to produce a

•  Local Excitation Coils – designed to excite a localized area

•  Multi-‐channel Transmit Coils have attributes of local and

•  Whole-‐body, Head, or Partial-‐body average SAR can be

•  SAR is proportional to the time-‐average RF energy

•  For a given pulse duration, SAR∝B12

•  For a given Flip angle, SAR∝(pulse duration)-‐1

•  For a given set of RF pulses, SAR∝(TR)-‐1

v  Spectral resolution

v  RF heating & SAR

v  System complexity

•  Pros vs Cons

•  Passive shielding à Actively shielded 7Ts are available

•  Several miles of superconducting wire

•  Outer windings with current in the

•  Superconducting wire is kept below 4K

v  Spectral resolution

v  RF heating & SAR

v  System complexity

•  Pros vs Cons