Azma Mareyam1, John E. Kirsch1,2, Yulin Chang3, Gunjan Madan3, and Lawrence L. Wald1,2
1Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, United States, 2Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States, 3Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Boston, MA, United States
Synopsis
We construct and test a prototype 64-channel brain
array coil for 7T and compare it to a 32-channel coil of similar design. Coil characteristics like signal to noise
ratio, noise correlation matrix, and noise amplification (G-factor) for
parallel imaging are described as well as and a comparison of the B1+ maps to assess birdcage coil
efficiency and homogeneity. The coil was designed on a split-half former with a
sliding top half to facilitate patient entry and utilizes a sliding birdcage
coil for transmit
Introduction
Increasing the
number of receive elements above 32 has been shown to provide improved
accelerated brain imaging and modest peripheral SNR increases for
non-accelerated imaging at 3T [1] and at 7T [2]. The principle pitfall of high
channel count coils is the maintenance of body noise dominance as the
individual coils become smaller. Ultrahigh field strength is well suited for
utilizing the highest channel-counts possible since the degree of body loading
increases with field strength as does parallel imaging performance [3]. With 64 receive channels recently available on
an FDA cleared 7T device we sought to exploit this benefit and demonstrate the potential
of the 64 channel system for brain imaging. Our prototype 64-channel receive
array uses a split-former contoured to the head, a sparse wire layout [4] to
reduce internal losses, integrated preamps placed a few centimeters off the
former surface and a high-power transmit birdcage coil. The SNR
and g-factors of the receiver array and the B1+ map of the
transmit birdcage coil are compared with our 32-channel receiver array. The constructed
coil was designed for routine use in a way that addresses patient comfort.Methods
The
helmet former is shown in Fig. 1b. The helmet was sized to accommodate a
majority of adult heads and is contoured at both the sides and the nape of the
neck. The volume coil and top half of
the receive array slide (in the bore direction) as shown in Fig. 1c to increase
accessibility for the patient. Fig. 1a shows the receive array which
has 24 elements on the top half (with a diameter of 5.5 cm) and 40 on the bottom
half (with a diameter of 6 cm). Each loop is made of 16 AWG wire with four or
five evenly-spaced capacitors. All elements are tuned to 297.2 MHz and matched when
loaded to an impedance of 75 Ω to minimize the noise figure of the Siemens 7T preamplifiers.
Preamplifier decoupling is achieved with a cable length of 6 cm. Placing the
preamps near the coil elements yields a substantial reduction in cable losses
but places them far enough away to reduce eddy current losses in the
preamplifier itself. The active detuning circuit is formed across the match
capacitor using an inductor and PIN diode.
The transmit coil is a detunable 16-rung
band pass birdcage with a rung length of 24cm. The birdcage conductors are
routed using a 0.031” circuit board and then bent and
fastened to the inside surface of a 33cm dia. fiberglass tube. This is nested
inside a copper-clad kapton (polyamide) slotted shield which is epoxied to the
inner surface of a 38cm dia. fiber glass tube The birdcage is tuned to 297.2 MHz
with a series capacitance matched to a loaded impedance of 50 Ω. Tuned cable traps are used at the quadrature drive points
at the top back side of the coil. PIN diodes are added to each rung and DC bias
is delivered using circuit boards with crossing traces and RF chokes so the
birdcage is completely disabled if receiving with an array.
Data were acquired on clinical 7T
whole-body MRI scanner (MAGNETOM Terra, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany)
using the 17cm spherical loading “BIRN” agar phantom [5]. Array noise covariance was estimated from
thermal noise data acquired without RF excitation, and SNR maps were computed
following the method of Kellman & McVeigh [6]. The B1+
map was acquired using the AFI [7] Method (64x64x56 matrix, FOV=
192x192x168 mm, TRs= [5.8, 28] ms, Flip angle 60º, TE=2.73 ms, BW=260Hz/pixel) using an oil phantom to determine B1 homogeneity of the volume transmit coil. The coil
was then compared to a 32-Channel receive array whose helmet and the transmit
birdcage are of the same dimensions.Results
Each element shows a Q unloaded-to-loaded (with a
human head) ratio of ~260/40. S21, loaded, between neighboring elements ranges
from -18 dB to -10.5 dB. S11 reflections showed the elements tuned and matched
to the 75 Ω required by the preamplifier. Fig. 2a shows unaccelerated SNR maps of the BIRN phantom comparing the 64 and 32 channel arrays
in the three orientations. The SNR gain in the axial slice ranges from 2.4-fold on the phantom’s edge to approximately no-gain at the center. In the sagittal and coronal slice the SNR gain at
the edge was up to 1.5x and 3x respectively. Figure 2b shows the
noise correlation matrix between channels. Average was 8% for the 64-channel
coil, which is lower than the 32ch but with comparable peak couplings. The g-factor comparison (Fig. 3) shows that the
64-channel coil and the 32-channel coil are comparable for low accelerations
but the 64 channel starts to perform better at 1D accelerations above 3 fold
and 2D accelerations of 3x3 and above. The
B1+ map in Fig 4 shows relatively uniform
transmit efficiency over the oil phantom and similar to the 32-channel array,
demonstrating a minimal shielding effect from the densely arranged preamps
around the receive coil.Discussions and Conclusion
The current system
incorporates an improved mechanical design, preamps mounted above the coil
detectors, and an integrated transmit coil design to provide highly accelerated
brain imaging for UHF MR studiesAcknowledgements
Thanks
to Simon Sigalovsky for help with fabrication. Thanks to Bernd Stoeckel from Siemens Medical Solutions, USA for help
with coil files. Thanks to Danny Joseph Park for help with setting up the protocols. Thanks to Neha Koonjoo for help.References
[1] Keil et al., MRM 2013, 70 (248-258). [2] Ugurbil et al., MRM 2019 (1-15) [3] Wiesinger et al. MRM 2004 52(5) 953-964 [4] Keil et al. MRM 2011, 66(6): 1777-87 [5]
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u50k8yp11c46r32/BIRN_phantom.pdf?dl=0
[6] Kellman et al. MRM 2005, 54(6): 1439-47 [7] Yarnykh et al. (2007) MRM 57(1):192-200.