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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fluckiger, Jacob U., Benefield, Brandon C., Bakhos, Lara, Harris, Kathleen R., Lee, Daniel C.
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