Article

T2* measurement during first-pass contrast-enhanced cardiac perfusion imaging

Laboratory of Cardiac Energetics, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-1061, USA.
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.4). 11/2006; 56(5):1132-4. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.21061
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT First-pass contrast-enhanced (CE) myocardial perfusion imaging will experience T(2) (*) effects at peak concentrations of contrast agent. A reduction in the signal intensity of left ventricular (LV) blood due to T(2) (*) losses may effect estimates of the arterial input function (AIF) used for quantitative perfusion measurement. Imaging artifacts may also result from T(2) (*) losses as well as off-resonance due to the bolus susceptibility. We hypothesized that T(2) (*) losses would not be significant for measurement of the AIF in full-dose studies using a short echo time (TE = 0.6 ms). The purpose of this study was to directly measure T(2) (*) in the LV cavity during first-pass perfusion. For single-dose Gd-DTPA (0.1 mmol/kg at 5 ml/s), the LV blood pool T(2) (*) had a mean value of 9 ms (N = 10) at peak enhancement. Distortion of the AIF due to T(2) (*) signal intensity loss will be less than 10% using TE = 0.6 ms.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
81 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: First-pass myocardial perfusion is often imaged with a tailored hybrid centric interleaved echo-planar-imaging sequence, providing rapid image acquisition with good contrast enhancement. The centric interleaved phase-encode order minimises the effective time-of-echo but it is sensitive to frequency-offsets. This short article aims to show possible artefacts that might originate with this sequence, in the context of first-pass perfusion imaging, when frequency-offsets are present. Non-uniform magnitude modulation effects were also analysed. Numerical and phantom simulations were used to illustrate the effects of frequency-offsets and non-uniform magnitude modulation with this sequence in a typical perfusion protocol. In vivo data was post-processed to analyse the h-EPI's sensitivity to the frequency-offsets. The centric phase-order was shown to be highly sensitive to frequency-offsets due to its symmetrical phase slope. Resulting artefacts include blurring, and splitting of the image into two identical copies along the phase-encode direction. It was also shown that frequency-offsets can introduce signal loss and ghosting of the right ventricle signal into the myocardium. The in vivo results were confirmed by numerical and phantom simulations. Magnitude modulation effects were found to be small. Imaging first-pass myocardial perfusion with an hybrid centric echo-planar-imaging sequence can be corrupted with ghosting and splitting of the image due to frequency-offsets.
    Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 06/2012; 14:44. DOI:10.1186/1532-429X-14-44 · 4.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PurposeMR myocardial perfusion imaging is dependent on reliable electrocardiogram (ECG) triggering for accurate measurement of myocardial blood flow (MBF). A non–ECG-triggered method for quantitative first-pass imaging may improve clinical feasibility in patients with poor ECG signal. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of a non–ECG-triggered method for myocardial perfusion imaging in a single slice.Methods The proposed non–ECG-triggered technique uses a saturation-recovery magnetization preparation and golden-angle radial acquisition for integrated arterial input function (AIF) measurement. Image based self-gating with a temporal resolution of 42.6 ms is used to generate a first-pass image series with consistent cardiac phase. The AIF is measured using beat-by-beat T1 estimation of the ventricular blood pool. The proposed technique was performed on 14 healthy volunteers and compared against a conventional ECG-triggered dual-bolus acquisition.ResultsThe proposed method produced MBF with no significant difference compared with ECG-triggered technique (mean of 0.63 ± 0.22 mL/min/g to 0.73 ± 0.21 mL/min/g).Conclusion We have developed a non–ECG-triggered perfusion imaging method with T1 based measurement of the AIF in a single slice. In this preliminary study, our results demonstrate that MBF measured using the proposed method is comparable to the conventional ECG-triggered method. Magn Reson Med, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 09/2014; DOI:10.1002/mrm.25451 · 3.40 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quantification of regional myocardial blood flow (rMBF) with first-pass magnetic resonance imaging (FP-MRI) requires two contrast agent injections (dual bolus technique), inducing error in the determined rMBF if the injections differ. We hypothesize that using input and residue curves of the same injection would be more reliable. We aim to introduce and evaluate a novel method to correct the high concentration arterial input function (AIF) for determination of rMBF. Sixteen patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were examined before and after chemotherapy. The input function was solved by correcting initial high concentration AIF using the ratio of low and high contrast AIF areas, normalized by corresponding heart rates (modified dual bolus method). For comparison, the scaled low contrast AIF was used as an input function (dual bolus method). Unidirectional transfer coefficient K(trans) was calculated using both methods. K(trans)-values determined with the dual bolus (0.81 ± 0.32 ml g(-1) min(-1)) and modified dual bolus (0.77 ± 0.42 ml g(-1) min(-1)) methods were in agreement (p = 0.21). Mean K(trans)-values increased from 0.76 ± 0.43 to 0.89 ± 0.55 ml g(-1) min(-1) after chemotherapy (p = 0.17). The modified dual bolus technique agrees with the dual bolus technique (R2 = 0.899) when the low and high contrast injections are similar. However, when this is not the case, the modified dual bolus technique may be more reliable.
    Physiological Measurement 02/2014; 35(4):533-547. DOI:10.1088/0967-3334/35/4/533 · 1.50 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from