Quantification of porcine myocardial perfusion with modified dual bolus MRI – a prospective study with a PET reference

BACKGROUND: The reliable quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) with MRI, necessitates the correction of errors in arterial input function (AIF) caused by the T1 saturation effect. The aim of this study was to compare MBF determined by a traditional dual bolus method against a modified dual bolus approach and to evaluate both methods against PET in a porcine model of myocardial ischemia. METHODS: Local myocardial ischemia was induced in five pigs, which were subsequently examined with contrast enhanced MRI (gadoteric acid) and PET (O-15 water). In the determination of MBF, the initial high concentration AIF was corrected using the ratio of low and high contrast AIF areas, normalized according to the corresponding heart rates. MBF was determined from the MRI, during stress and at rest, using the dual bolus and the modified dual bolus methods in 24 segments of the myocardium (total of 240 segments, five pigs in stress and rest). Due to image artifacts and technical problems 53% of the segments had to be rejected from further analyses. These two estimates were later compared against respective rest and stress PET-based MBF measurements. RESULTS: Values of MBF were determined for 112/240 regions. Correlations for MBF between the modified dual bolus method and PET was r(s) = 0.84, and between the traditional dual bolus method and PET r(s) = 0.79. The intraclass correlation was very good (ICC = 0.85) between the modified dual bolus method and PET, but poor between the traditional dual bolus method and PET (ICC = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: The modified dual bolus method showed a better agreement with PET than the traditional dual bolus method. The modified dual bolus method was found to be more reliable than the traditional dual bolus method, especially when there was variation in the heart rate. However, the difference between the MBF values estimated with either of the two MRI-based dual-bolus methods and those estimated with the gold-standard PET method were statistically significant. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12880-019-0359-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.