Figure 1

Comparison of accessory vein and common ostium detecting ability using a bar graph to quantify differences between conventional CE-MRA and TWIST TR-MRA. However, TWIST was superior in detecting common ostiums and slightly better than the conventional CE-MRA technique at identifying patients with both common ostiums and accessory veins. Finally, CE-MRA was slightly better overall for visualizing the pulmonary veins but had a greater margin of error. The TWIST technique, on the other hand, had slightly worse overall results but was more consistent in yielding high quality visualizations of the veins. The CE-MRA was able to identify the focal ostial stenosis present in one patient during the qualitative analysis while the TWISE was not.