Cargando…
A Comparison of Theory-Based and Experimentally Determined Myocardial Signal Intensity Correction Methods in First-Pass Perfusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Objectives. To evaluate the impact of correcting myocardial signal saturation on the accuracy of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) measurements. Materials and Methods. We performed 15 dual bolus first-pass perfusion studies in 7 dogs during global coronary vasodilation and variable degrees of cor...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4605224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26491465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/843741 |
_version_ | 1782395172829528064 |
---|---|
author | Fluckiger, Jacob U. Benefield, Brandon C. Bakhos, Lara Harris, Kathleen R. Lee, Daniel C. |
author_facet | Fluckiger, Jacob U. Benefield, Brandon C. Bakhos, Lara Harris, Kathleen R. Lee, Daniel C. |
author_sort | Fluckiger, Jacob U. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objectives. To evaluate the impact of correcting myocardial signal saturation on the accuracy of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) measurements. Materials and Methods. We performed 15 dual bolus first-pass perfusion studies in 7 dogs during global coronary vasodilation and variable degrees of coronary artery stenosis. We compared microsphere MBF to MBF calculated from uncorrected and corrected MRI signal. Four correction methods were tested, two theoretical methods (Th1 and Th2) and two empirical methods (Em1 and Em2). Results. The correlations with microsphere MBF (n = 90 segments) were: uncorrected (y = 0.47x + 1.1, r = 0.70), Th1 (y = 0.53x + 1.0, r = 0.71), Th2 (y = 0.62x + 0.86, r = 0.73), Em1 (y = 0.82x + 0.86, r = 0.77), and Em2 (y = 0.72x + 0.84, r = 0.75). All corrected methods were not significantly different from microspheres, while uncorrected MBF values were significantly lower. For the top 50% of microsphere MBF values, flows were significantly underestimated by uncorrected SI (31%), Th1 (25%), and Th2 (19%), while Em1 (1%), and Em2 (9%) were similar to microsphere MBF. Conclusions. Myocardial signal saturation should be corrected prior to flow modeling to avoid underestimation of MBF by MR perfusion imaging. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4605224 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Hindawi Publishing Corporation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46052242015-10-21 A Comparison of Theory-Based and Experimentally Determined Myocardial Signal Intensity Correction Methods in First-Pass Perfusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fluckiger, Jacob U. Benefield, Brandon C. Bakhos, Lara Harris, Kathleen R. Lee, Daniel C. Comput Math Methods Med Research Article Objectives. To evaluate the impact of correcting myocardial signal saturation on the accuracy of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) measurements. Materials and Methods. We performed 15 dual bolus first-pass perfusion studies in 7 dogs during global coronary vasodilation and variable degrees of coronary artery stenosis. We compared microsphere MBF to MBF calculated from uncorrected and corrected MRI signal. Four correction methods were tested, two theoretical methods (Th1 and Th2) and two empirical methods (Em1 and Em2). Results. The correlations with microsphere MBF (n = 90 segments) were: uncorrected (y = 0.47x + 1.1, r = 0.70), Th1 (y = 0.53x + 1.0, r = 0.71), Th2 (y = 0.62x + 0.86, r = 0.73), Em1 (y = 0.82x + 0.86, r = 0.77), and Em2 (y = 0.72x + 0.84, r = 0.75). All corrected methods were not significantly different from microspheres, while uncorrected MBF values were significantly lower. For the top 50% of microsphere MBF values, flows were significantly underestimated by uncorrected SI (31%), Th1 (25%), and Th2 (19%), while Em1 (1%), and Em2 (9%) were similar to microsphere MBF. Conclusions. Myocardial signal saturation should be corrected prior to flow modeling to avoid underestimation of MBF by MR perfusion imaging. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015 2015-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4605224/ /pubmed/26491465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/843741 Text en Copyright © 2015 Jacob U. Fluckiger et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Fluckiger, Jacob U. Benefield, Brandon C. Bakhos, Lara Harris, Kathleen R. Lee, Daniel C. A Comparison of Theory-Based and Experimentally Determined Myocardial Signal Intensity Correction Methods in First-Pass Perfusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
title | A Comparison of Theory-Based and Experimentally Determined Myocardial Signal Intensity Correction Methods in First-Pass Perfusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
title_full | A Comparison of Theory-Based and Experimentally Determined Myocardial Signal Intensity Correction Methods in First-Pass Perfusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
title_fullStr | A Comparison of Theory-Based and Experimentally Determined Myocardial Signal Intensity Correction Methods in First-Pass Perfusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Theory-Based and Experimentally Determined Myocardial Signal Intensity Correction Methods in First-Pass Perfusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
title_short | A Comparison of Theory-Based and Experimentally Determined Myocardial Signal Intensity Correction Methods in First-Pass Perfusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
title_sort | comparison of theory-based and experimentally determined myocardial signal intensity correction methods in first-pass perfusion magnetic resonance imaging |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4605224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26491465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/843741 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fluckigerjacobu acomparisonoftheorybasedandexperimentallydeterminedmyocardialsignalintensitycorrectionmethodsinfirstpassperfusionmagneticresonanceimaging AT benefieldbrandonc acomparisonoftheorybasedandexperimentallydeterminedmyocardialsignalintensitycorrectionmethodsinfirstpassperfusionmagneticresonanceimaging AT bakhoslara acomparisonoftheorybasedandexperimentallydeterminedmyocardialsignalintensitycorrectionmethodsinfirstpassperfusionmagneticresonanceimaging AT harriskathleenr acomparisonoftheorybasedandexperimentallydeterminedmyocardialsignalintensitycorrectionmethodsinfirstpassperfusionmagneticresonanceimaging AT leedanielc acomparisonoftheorybasedandexperimentallydeterminedmyocardialsignalintensitycorrectionmethodsinfirstpassperfusionmagneticresonanceimaging AT fluckigerjacobu comparisonoftheorybasedandexperimentallydeterminedmyocardialsignalintensitycorrectionmethodsinfirstpassperfusionmagneticresonanceimaging AT benefieldbrandonc comparisonoftheorybasedandexperimentallydeterminedmyocardialsignalintensitycorrectionmethodsinfirstpassperfusionmagneticresonanceimaging AT bakhoslara comparisonoftheorybasedandexperimentallydeterminedmyocardialsignalintensitycorrectionmethodsinfirstpassperfusionmagneticresonanceimaging AT harriskathleenr comparisonoftheorybasedandexperimentallydeterminedmyocardialsignalintensitycorrectionmethodsinfirstpassperfusionmagneticresonanceimaging AT leedanielc comparisonoftheorybasedandexperimentallydeterminedmyocardialsignalintensitycorrectionmethodsinfirstpassperfusionmagneticresonanceimaging |