FLASH proton density imaging for improved surface coil intensity correction in quantitative and semi-quantitative SSFP perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance

BACKGROUND: A low excitation flip angle (α < 10°) steady-state free precession (SSFP) proton-density (PD) reference scan is often used to estimate the B(1)-field inhomogeneity for surface coil intensity correction (SCIC) of the saturation-recovery (SR) prepared high flip angle (α = 40-50°) SSFP myocardial perfusion images. The different SSFP off-resonance response for these two flip angles might lead to suboptimal SCIC when there is a spatial variation in the background B(0)-field. The low flip angle SSFP-PD frames are more prone to parallel imaging banding artifacts in the presence of off-resonance. The use of FLASH-PD frames would eliminate both the banding artifacts and the uneven frequency response in the presence of off-resonance in the surface coil inhomogeneity estimate and improve homogeneity of semi-quantitative and quantitative perfusion measurements. METHODS: B(0)-field maps, SSFP and FLASH-PD frames were acquired in 10 healthy volunteers to analyze the SSFP off-resonance response. Furthermore, perfusion scans preceded by both FLASH and SSFP-PD frames from 10 patients with no myocardial infarction were analyzed semi-quantitatively and quantitatively (rest n = 10 and stress n = 1). Intra-subject myocardial blood flow (MBF) coefficient of variation (CoV) over the whole left ventricle (LV), as well as intra-subject peak contrast (CE) and upslope (SLP) standard deviation (SD) over 6 LV sectors were investigated. RESULTS: In the 6 out of 10 cases where artifacts were apparent in the LV ROI of the SSFP-PD images, all three variability metrics were statistically significantly lower when using the FLASH-PD frames as input for the SCIC (CoV(MBF-FLASH) = 0.3 ± 0.1, CoV(MBF-SSFP) = 0.4 ± 0.1, p = 0.03; SD(CE-FLASH) = 10 ± 2, SD(CE-SSFP) = 32 ± 7, p = 0.01; SD(SLP-FLASH) = 0.02 ± 0.01, SD(SLP-SSFP) = 0.06 ± 0.02, p = 0.03). Example rest and stress data sets from the patient pool demonstrate that the low flip angle SSFP protocol can exhibit severe ghosting artifacts originating from off-resonance banding artifacts at the edges of the field of view that parallel imaging is not able to unfold. These artifacts lead to errors in the quantitative perfusion maps and the semi-quantitative perfusion indexes, such as false positives. It is shown that this can be avoided by using FLASH-PD frames as input for the SCIC. CONCLUSIONS: FLASH-PD images are recommended as input for SCIC of SSFP perfusion images instead of low flip angle SSFP-PD images.