Top

Abdominal Radiology

Published in:

01-01-2017 | Innovations in quality

Frequency and reasons for extra sequences in clinical abdominal MRI examinations

Authors: Jessica Schreiber-Zinaman, Andrew B. Rosenkrantz

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 1/2017

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to identify the frequency and reasons for extra sequences in clinical liver MRI and MRCP examinations.

Methods

A total of 250 consecutive liver MRI and 250 consecutive MRCP examinations performed at a single institution were reviewed. Extra sequences performed in comparison with our standard institutional protocol were identified. Reasons for the extra sequences were identified. Overall trends were assessed.

Results

In significantly greater fractions of exams (p = 0.009–0.030), MRCP had ≥1 extra sequence (40.8% vs. 29.2%) and ≥2 extra sequences (16.0% vs. 5.6%) in comparison with the institutional protocol than did liver MRI. The average number of extra sequences was significantly higher (p = 0.004) for MRCP (0.73 ± 1.2) than liver MRI (0.44 ± 0.88). Reasons for extra sequences were as follows: sequence repeated for patient motion (33.8% for liver MRI; 31.9% for MRCP); sequence repeated for anatomic coverage (24.3% for liver MRI; 19.8% for MRCP); sequence added by the radiologist (15.3% for liver MRI; 33.0% for MRCP); sequence repeated for other reason (17.1% for liver MRI; 12.6% for MRCP); and sequence added by the technologist (5.4% for liver MRI; 2.7% for MRCP). The most commonly repeated sequence due to motion was the axial fat-saturated turbo spin-echo T2-weighted sequence for both liver MRI and MRCP (54.7% and 29.3% of sequences repeated due to motion, respectively).

Conclusion

For liver MRI and MRCP exams, sequences were most often repeated due to motion artifact (most often occurring on TSE T2WI), and sequences were most often added by the radiologist. The findings may help guide sequence optimization, quality improvement initiatives, and standardization of operations, for improving efficiency in abdominal MRI workflow.

Roth CJ, Boll DT, Chea YW, Wall LK, Merkle EM (2009) Implementation of graphic user interface screen capture solution for workflow assessment of abdominal MR examinations valuable tool to analyze discrepancies in expected and experienced MR table time. Acad Radiol 16(10):1286–1291. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2009.05.009 CrossRefPubMed

Brennan SC, Redd WH, Jacobsen PB, et al. (1988) Anxiety and panic during magnetic resonance scans. Lancet 2(8609):512CrossRefPubMed

Andre JB, Bresnahan BW, Mossa-Basha M, et al. (2015) Toward quantifying the prevalence, severity, and cost associated with patient motion during clinical mr examinations. J Am Coll Radiol 12(7):689–695. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.03.007 CrossRefPubMed

Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Value-Based Payment Modifier. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/medicare-fee-for-service-payment/physicianfeedbackprogram/valuebasedpaymentmodifier.html. Accessed 6 Feb 2016

American College of Radiology CMS Finalized CT and MR Cost Center Policy in IPPS Final Rule. http://www.acr.org/News-Publications/News/News-Articles/2013/Economics/20130805-CT-and-MR-Cost-Center-Policy. Accessed 6 Feb 2016

Boland GW, Duszak R Jr, McGinty G, Allen B Jr (2014) Delivery of appropriateness, quality, safety, efficiency and patient satisfaction. J Am Coll Radiol 11(1):7–11. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2013.07.016 CrossRefPubMed

Gazelle GS, Johnson CD, Kruskal JB. Radiologic Society of North America. Reducing Unnecessary Scan Acquisitions at Abdominal MRI. https://www.rsna.org/uploadedFiles/RSNA/Content/Science_and_Education/Quality/Reducing%20Unnecessary%20Scan%20Acquisitons%20at%20Abdominal%20MRI%20Application.pdf. Accessed 6 Feb 2016

Roth CJ, Boll DT, Wall LK, Merkle EM (2010) Evaluation of MRI acquisition workflow with lean six sigma method: case study of liver and knee examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(2):W150–W156. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.3678 CrossRefPubMed

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. doi:10.2214/ajr.143.6.1175 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Ivancevic MK, Kwee TC, Takahara T, et al. (2009) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver at 3.0 Tesla using TRacking Only Navigator echo (TRON): a feasibility study. J Magn Reson Imaging 30(5):1027–1033. doi:10.1002/jmri.21939 CrossRefPubMed

11.

McConnell MV, Khasgiwala VC, Savord BJ, et al. (1997) Comparison of respiratory suppression methods and navigator locations for MR coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168(5):1369–1375. doi:10.2214/ajr.168.5.9129447 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Taouli B, Sandberg A, Stemmer A, et al. (2009) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver: comparison of navigator triggered and breathhold acquisitions. J Magn Reson Imaging 30(3):561–568. doi:10.1002/jmri.21876 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Klaming L, van Minde D, Weda H, Nielsen T, Duijm LE (2015) The relation between anticipatory anxiety and movement during an mr examination. Acad Radiol 22(12):1571–1578. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2015.08.020 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Powell R, Ahmad M, Gilbert FJ, Brian D, Johnston M (2015) Improving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations: development and evaluation of an intervention to reduce movement in scanners and facilitate scan completion. Br J Health Psychol 20(3):449–465. doi:10.1111/bjhp.12132 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Kaplan DA (2014) Diagnostic Imaging. Making Imaging Centers Child Friendly http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/pediatric-imaging/making-imaging-centers-child-friendly. Accessed 6 Feb 2016

16.

Chandarana H, Feng L, Ream J, et al. (2015) Respiratory motion-resolved compressed sensing reconstruction of free-breathing radial acquisition for dynamic liver magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 50(11):749–756. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000179 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Kang KA, Kim YK, Kim E, et al. (2015) T2-Weighted liver MRI using the multivane technique at 3T: comparison with conventional T2-Weighted MRI. Korean J Radiol 16(5):1038–1046. doi:10.3348/kjr.2015.16.5.1038 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Zhang L, Tian C, Wang P, et al. (2015) Comparative study of image quality between axial T2-weighted BLADE and turbo spin-echo MRI of the upper abdomen on 3.0 T. Japanese J Radiol 33(9):585–590. doi:10.1007/s11604-015-0463-9 CrossRef

19.

Rosenkrantz AB, Patel JM, Babb JS, Storey P, Hecht EM (2010) Liver MRI at 3 T using a respiratory-triggered time-efficient 3D T2-weighted technique: impact on artifacts and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(3):634–641. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.2994 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Dohan A, Gavini JP, Place V, et al. (2013) T2-weighted MR imaging of the liver: qualitative and quantitative comparison of SPACE MR imaging with turbo spin-echo MR imaging. European J Radiol 82(11):e655–e661. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.07.020 CrossRef

21.

Rosenkrantz AB, Mannelli L, Mossa D, Babb JS (2011) Breath-hold T2-weighted MRI of the liver at 3T using the BLADE technique: impact upon image quality and lesion detection. Clin Radiol 66(5):426–433. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2010.10.018 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Bayramoglu S, Kilickesmez O, Cimilli T, et al. (2010) T2-weighted MRI of the upper abdomen: comparison of four fat-suppressed T2-weighted sequences including PROPELLER (BLADE) technique. Acad Radiol 17(3):368–374. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2009.10.015 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Michigan Radiology Quality C, Platt JF (2015) Human- versus system-level factors and their effect on electronic work list variation: challenging radiology’s fundamental attribution error. J Am Coll Radiol 12(9):931–939. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.03.035 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Sharma A (2014) A case for changing the way we utilize MR imaging: a societal perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 11(10):931–932. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2013.12.014 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Frequency and reasons for extra sequences in clinical abdominal MRI examinations
Authors: Jessica Schreiber-Zinaman
Andrew B. Rosenkrantz
Publication date: 01-01-2017
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Abdominal Radiology / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0877-6

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Heart Failure Video

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Frequency and reasons for extra sequences in clinical abdominal MRI examinations

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Diffusion-weighted imaging for evaluating inflammatory activity in Crohn’s disease: comparison with histopathology, conventional MRI activity scores, and faecal calprotectin

Portal vein thrombus and infiltrative HCC: a pictoral review

Heterotopic pancreatic rests: imaging features, complications, and unifying concepts

Imaging of autoimmune hepatitis and overlap syndromes

Erratum to: The ‘‘abdominal whirlpool’’ sign

Recurrent pyogenic cholangitis: a review of imaging findings and clinical management

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page