Investigation of alternative RF power limit control methods for 0.5T, 1.5T, and 3T parallel transmission cardiac imaging: A simulation study

• Published in: Magnetic resonance in medicine Vol. 91; no. 4; pp. 1659 - 1675
• Main Authors: Petzold, Johannes, Schmitter, Sebastian, Silemek, Berk, Winter, Lukas, Speck, Oliver, Ittermann, Bernd, Seifert, Frank
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.04.2024
• Subjects: Amplitudes; Circular polarization; Coils; Control methods; electromagnetic simulation; Heart; Homogeneity; parallel transmission; patient model uncertainty; position uncertainty; RF safety; Safety; safety factor; Safety factors; Simulation; patient model uncertainty; electromagnetic simulation; parallel transmission; safety factor; RF safety; position uncertainty
• ISSN: 0740-3194; 1522-2594; 1522-2594
• DOI: 10.1002/mrm.29932

Purpose To investigate safety and performance aspects of parallel‐transmit (pTx) RF control‐modes for a body coil at B0≤3T$$ {B}_0\le 3\mathrm{T} $$. Methods Electromagnetic simulations of 11 human voxel models in cardiac imaging position were conducted for B0=0.5T$$ {B}_0=0.5\mathrm{T} $$, 1.5T$$ 1.5\mathrm{T} $$ and 3T$$ 3\mathrm{T} $$ and a body coil with a configurable number of transmit channels (1, 2, 4, 8, 16). Three safety modes were considered: the ‘SAR‐controlled mode’ (SCM), where specific absorption rate (SAR) is limited directly, a ‘phase agnostic SAR‐controlled mode’ (PASCM), where phase information is neglected, and a ‘power‐controlled mode’ (PCM), where the voltage amplitude for each channel is limited. For either mode, safety limits were established based on a set of ‘anchor’ simulations and then evaluated in ‘target’ simulations on previously unseen models. The comparison allowed to derive safety factors accounting for varying patient anatomies. All control modes were compared in terms of the B1+$$ {B}_1^{+} $$ amplitude and homogeneity they permit under their respective safety requirements. Results Large safety factors (approximately five) are needed if only one or two anchor models are investigated but they shrink with increasing number of anchors. The achievable B1+$$ {B}_1^{+} $$ is highest for SCM but this advantage is reduced when the safety factor is included. PCM appears to be more robust against variations of subjects. PASCM performance is mostly in between SCM and PCM. Compared to standard circularly polarized (CP) excitation, pTx offers minor B1+$$ {B}_1^{+} $$ improvements if local SAR limits are always enforced. Conclusion PTx body coils can safely be used at B0≤3T$$ {B}_0\le 3\mathrm{T} $$. Uncertainties in patient anatomy must be accounted for, however, by simulating many models.