BackgroundCurrent myocardial perfusion measurements make use of an ECG-gated pulse sequence to track the uptake and washout of a gadolinium-based contrast agent. The use of a gated acquisition is a problem in situations with a poor ECG signal. Recently, an ungated perfusion acquisition was proposed but it is not known how accurately quantitative perfusion estimates can be made from such datasets that are acquired without any triggering signal.MethodsAn undersampled saturation recovery radial turboFLASH pulse sequence was used in 7 subjects to acquire dynamic contrast-enhanced images during free-breathing. A single saturation pulse was followed by acquisition of 4–5 slices after a delay of ~40 msec. This was repeated without pause and without any type of gating. The same pulse sequence, with ECG-gating, was used to acquire gated data as a ground truth. An iterative spatio-temporal constrained reconstruction was used to reconstruct the undersampled images. After reconstruction, the ungated images were retrospectively binned (“self-gated”) into two cardiac phases using a region of interest based technique and deformably registered into near-systole and near-diastole. The gated and the self-gated datasets were then quantified with standard methods.ResultsRegional myocardial blood flow estimates (MBFs) obtained using self-gated systole (0.64 ± 0.26 ml/min/g), self-gated diastole (0.64 ± 0.26 ml/min/g), and ECG-gated scans (0.65 ± 0.28 ml/min/g) were similar. Based on the criteria for interchangeable methods listed in the statistical analysis section, the MBF values estimated from self-gated and gated methods were not significantly different.ConclusionThe self-gated technique for quantification of regional myocardial perfusion matched ECG-gated perfusion measurements well in normal subjects at rest. Self-gated systolic perfusion values matched ECG-gated perfusion values better than did diastolic values.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12968-015-0109-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion examinations enable non-invasive quantification of myocardial blood flow. However, motion between frames due to breathing must be corrected for quantitative analysis. Although several methods have been proposed, there is a lack of widely available benchmarks to compare different algorithms. We sought to compare many algorithms from several groups in an open benchmark challenge. Nine clinical studies from two different centers comprising normal and diseased myocardium at both rest and stress were made available for this study. The primary validation measure was regional myocardial blood flow based on the transfer coefficient (Ktrans), which was computed using a compartment model and the myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) index. The ground truth was calculated using contours drawn manually on all frames by a single observer, and visually inspected by a second observer. Six groups participated and 19 different motion correction algorithms were compared. Each method used one of three different motion models: rigid, global affine or local deformation. The similarity metric also varied with methods employing either sum-of-squared differences, mutual information or cross-correlation. There were no significant differences in Ktrans or MPR compared across different motion models or similarity metrics. Compared with the ground truth, only Ktrans for the sum of squared differences metric, and for local deformation motion models, had significant bias. In conclusion, the open benchmark enabled evaluation of clinical perfusion indices over a wide range of methods. In particular, there was no benefit of non-rigid registration techniques over the other methods evaluated in this study. The benchmark data and results are available from the Cardiac Atlas Project (www.cardiacatlas.org).
Purpose The purpose of this study was to further develop and combine several innovative sequence designs to achieve quantitative 3D myocardial perfusion. These developments include an optimized 3D stack‐of‐stars readout (150 ms per beat), efficient acquisition of a 2D arterial input function, tailored saturation pulse design, and potential whole heart coverage during quantitative stress perfusion. Theory and Methods All studies were performed free‐breathing on a Prisma 3T MRI scanner. Phantom validation was used to verify sequence accuracy. A total of 21 subjects (3 patients with known disease) were scanned, 12 with a rest only protocol and 9 with both stress (regadenoson) and rest protocols. First pass quantitative perfusion was performed with gadoteridol (0.075 mmol/kg). Results Implementation and quantitative perfusion results are shown for healthy subjects and subjects with known coronary disease. Average rest perfusion for the 15 included healthy subjects was 0.79 ± 0.19 mL/g/min, the average stress perfusion for 6 healthy subject studies was 2.44 ± 0.61 mL/g/min, and the average global myocardial perfusion reserve ratio for 6 healthy subjects was 3.10 ± 0.24. Perfusion deficits for 3 patients with ischemia are shown. Average resting heart rate was 59 ± 7 bpm and the average stress heart rate was 81 ± 10 bpm. Conclusion This work demonstrates that a quantitative 3D myocardial perfusion sequence with the acquisition of a 2D arterial input function is feasible at high stress heart rates such as during stress. T1 values and gadolinium concentrations of the sequence match the reference standard well in a phantom, and myocardial rest and stress perfusion and myocardial perfusion reserve values are consistent with those published in literature.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.