Silent susceptibility-weighted angiography to detect hemorrhagic lesions in the brain: a clinical and phantom study

  • Takuya Fujiwara
  • Yoshiyuki WatanabeEmail author
  • Hisashi Tanaka
  • Hiroto Takahashi
  • Chisato Matsuo
  • Masahiro Fujiwara
  • Tetsuya Wakayama
  • Pauline Worters
  • Christopher J. Hardy
  • Noriyuki Tomiyama
Diagnostic Neuroradiology



To compare the effectiveness of silent susceptibility-weighted angiography (sSWAN), a new imaging technique with lower acoustic noise, with conventional susceptibility-weighted angiography (cSWAN) in the detection of intracranial hemorrhagic lesions.


We measured the acoustic and background noise during sSWAN and cSWAN imaging and calculated the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the phantom consisting of eight chambers with different concentrations of superparamagnetic iron oxide. In the clinical study, we calculated the CNRs of hemorrhagic lesions in 15 patients and evaluated the images for conspicuity and artifact on each sequence and scored them on a 4-point scale. We also evaluated whether hypointense areas observed on sSWAN or cSWAN increased in size from those on T2*-weighted imaging (T2*-WI).


Acoustic noise for sSWAN (57.9 ± 0.32 dB [background noise 51.3 dB]) was significantly less than that for cSWAN (89.0 ± 0.22 dB [background noise 50.9 dB]). The CNRs of phantoms for sSWAN were slightly but not significantly lower than those for cSWAN (P = 0.18). The CNRs of hemorrhagic lesions did not show significant differences between sSWAN and cSWAN (P = 0.17). There were no significant differences between sSWAN and cSWAN with respect to the scores for conspicuity, artifact, and change in size of hypointense areas from T2*-WI.


sSWAN is equivalent to cSWAN with respect to the image quality for the detection of hemorrhagic lesions but has lower acoustic noise.


Magnetic resonance imaging Susceptibility-weighted angiography Acoustic noise Intracerebral hemorrhage 


Funding information


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Quirk ME, Letendre AJ, Ciottone RA, Lingley JF (1989) Anxiety in patients undergoing MR imaging. Radiology 170(2):463–466. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brummett RE, Talbot JM, Charuhas P (1988) Potential hearing loss resulting from MR imaging. Radiology 169(2):539–540. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McJury M, Shellock FG (2000) Auditory noise associated with MR procedures: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging 12(1):37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jin C, Li H, Li X et al (2018) Temporary hearing threshold shift in healthy volunteers with hearing protection caused by acoustic noise exposure during 3-T multisequence MR neuroimaging. Radiology 286(2):602–608. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edwards AD, Arthurs OJ (2011) Paediatric MRI under sedation: is it necessary? What is the evidence for the alternatives? Pediatr Radiol 41(11):1353–1364. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barkovich MJ, Xu D, Desikan RS, Williams C, Barkovich AJ (2018) Pediatric neuro MRI: tricks to minimize sedation. Pediatr Radiol 48(1):50–55. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katsunuma A, Takamori H, Sakakura Y, Hamamura Y, Ogo Y, Katayama R (2002) Quiet MRI with novel acoustic noise reduction. MAGMA 13(3):139–144. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alibek S, Vogel M, Sun W et al (2014) Acoustic noise reduction in MRI using Silent Scan: an initial experience. Diagn Interv Radiol 20(4):360–363. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corcuera-Solano I, Doshi A, Pawha PS, Gui D, Gaddipati A, Tanenbaum L (2015) Quiet PROPELLER MRI techniques match the quality of conventional PROPELLER brain imaging techniques. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 36(6):1124–1127. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heismann B, Ott M, Grodzki D (2015) Sequence-based acoustic noise reduction of clinical MRI scans. Magn Reson Med 73(3):1104–1109. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rösch J, Ott M, Heismann B et al (2016) Quiet diffusion-weighted head scanning: initial clinical evaluation in ischemic stroke patients at 1.5T. J Magn Reson Imaging 44(5):1238–1243. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hayashida Y, Kakeda S, Hiai Y et al (2014) Diagnosis of intracranial hemorrhagic lesions: comparison between 3D-SWAN (3D T2*-weighted imaging with multi-echo acquisition) and 2D-T2*-weighted imaging. Acta Radiol 55(2):201–207. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mori N, Miki Y, Kikuta K et al (2008) Microbleeds in moyamoya disease: susceptibility-weighted imaging versus T2*-weighted imaging at 3 Tesla. Invest Radiol 43(8):574–579. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Souza JM, Domingues RC, Cruz LC Jr, Domingues FS, Iasbeck T, Gasparetto EL (2008) Susceptibility-weighted imaging for the evaluation of patients with familial cerebral cavernous malformations: a comparison with T2-weighted fast spin-echo and gradient-echo sequences. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 29(1):154–158. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Worters PW, Beque D, Peters RD et al (2016) Quantitative susceptibility mapping-comparison of silent and conventional acquisitions proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med 24:4099Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Akter M, Hirai T, Hiai Y et al (2007) Detection of hemorrhagic hypointense foci in the brain on susceptibility-weighted imaging clinical and phantom studies. Acad Radiol 14(9):1011–1019. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aida N, Niwa T, Fujii Y et al (2016) Quiet T1-weighted pointwise encoding time reduction with radial acquisition for assessing myelination in the pediatric brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37(8):1528–1534. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matsuo-Hagiyama C, Watanabe Y, Tanaka H et al (2017) Comparison of silent and conventional MR imaging for the evaluation of myelination in children. Magn Reson Med Sci 16(3):209–216. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ohlmann-Knafo S, Morlo M, Tarnoki DL et al (2016) Comparison of image quality characteristics on silent MR versus conventional MR imaging of brain lesions at 3 Tesla. Br J Radiol 89(1067):20150801. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tong KA, Ashwal S, Obenaus A, Nickerson JP, Kido D, Haacke EM (2008) Susceptibility-weighted MR imaging: a review of clinical applications in children. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 29(1):9–17. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takuya Fujiwara
    • 1
  • Yoshiyuki Watanabe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hisashi Tanaka
    • 1
  • Hiroto Takahashi
    • 1
  • Chisato Matsuo
    • 1
  • Masahiro Fujiwara
    • 1
  • Tetsuya Wakayama
    • 2
  • Pauline Worters
    • 2
  • Christopher J. Hardy
    • 3
  • Noriyuki Tomiyama
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineOsakaJapan
  2. 2.GE Healthcare, MR Collaboration and DevelopmentTokyoJapan
  3. 3.GE Global ResearchNiskayunaUSA

Personalised recommendations