PURPOSE: To compare fully quantitative and semiquantitative analysis of rest and stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) using a dual-bolus first-pass perfusion MRI method in humans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rest and dipyridamole stress perfusion imaging was performed on 10 healthy humans by administering gadolinium contrast using a dual-bolus protocol. Ventricular and myocardial time-signal intensity curves were generated from a series of T1-weighted images and adjusted for surface-coil intensity variations. Corrected signal intensity curves were then fitted using fully quantitative model constrained deconvolution (MCD) to quantify MBF (mL/min/g) and MPR. The results were compared with semiquantitative contrast enhancement ratio (CER) and upslope index (SLP) measurements. RESULTS: MBF (mL/min/g) estimated with MCD averaged 1.02 +/- 0.22 at rest and 3.39 +/- 0.59 for stress with no overlap in measures. MPR was 3.43 +/- 0.71, 1.91 +/- 0.65, and 1.16 +/- 0.19 using MCD, SLP, and CER. Both semiquantitative parameters (SLP and CER) significantly underestimated MPR (P < 0.001) and failed to completely discriminate rest and stress perfusion. CONCLUSION: Rest and stress MBF (mL/min/g) and MPR estimated by dual-bolus perfusion MRI fit within published ranges. Semiquantitative methods (SLP and CER) significantly underestimated MPR. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To compare fully quantitative and semiquantitative analysis of rest and stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) using a dual-bolus first-pass perfusion MRI method in humans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rest and dipyridamole stress perfusion imaging was performed on 10 healthy humans by administering gadolinium contrast using a dual-bolus protocol. Ventricular and myocardial time-signal intensity curves were generated from a series of T1-weighted images and adjusted for surface-coil intensity variations. Corrected signal intensity curves were then fitted using fully quantitative model constrained deconvolution (MCD) to quantify MBF (mL/min/g) and MPR. The results were compared with semiquantitative contrast enhancement ratio (CER) and upslope index (SLP) measurements. RESULTS: MBF (mL/min/g) estimated with MCD averaged 1.02 +/- 0.22 at rest and 3.39 +/- 0.59 for stress with no overlap in measures. MPR was 3.43 +/- 0.71, 1.91 +/- 0.65, and 1.16 +/- 0.19 using MCD, SLP, and CER. Both semiquantitative parameters (SLP and CER) significantly underestimated MPR (P < 0.001) and failed to completely discriminate rest and stress perfusion. CONCLUSION: Rest and stress MBF (mL/min/g) and MPR estimated by dual-bolus perfusion MRI fit within published ranges. Semiquantitative methods (SLP and CER) significantly underestimated MPR. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Carolina Valdiviezo; Marietta Ambrose; Vishal Mehra; Albert C Lardo; Joao A C Lima; Richard T George Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Vishal C Mehra; Marietta Ambrose; Carolina Valdiviezo-Schlomp; Karl H Schuleri; Albert C Lardo; Joao A C Lima; Richard T George Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Federico E Mordini; Tariq Haddad; Li-Yueh Hsu; Peter Kellman; Tracy B Lowrey; Anthony H Aletras; W Patricia Bandettini; Andrew E Arai Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-01
Authors: Benjamin E Northrup; Kyle S McCommis; Haosen Zhang; Shuddhadeb Ray; Pamela K Woodard; Robert J Gropler; Jie Zheng Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2008-11-17 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Anil K Attili; Andreas Schuster; Eike Nagel; Johan H C Reiber; Rob J van der Geest Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.357