PURPOSE: Myocardial blood volume (MBV) may provide complementary information about myocardial oxygen needs and viability. The aim of this study is to examine a Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) perfusion method to quantify the changes in MBV, in comparison with the radiolabeled 99mTc-Red-Blood-Cell (RBC) method. METHODS: Normal mongrel dogs (n=12) were used in this study. Eight dogs were injected intravenously with dipyridamole, and 4 dogs were given dobutamine during the MR scans. CMR first-pass perfusion imaging was performed at rest and during the pharmacological stress. An intravascular contrast agent, Gadomer (Schering AG, Berlin, Germany), was injected (0.015 mmol/kg) as a bolus during the scans. A perfusion quantification method was applied to obtain MBV maps. Radiolabeled-RBCs were injected at the end of the study to measure reference MBV at rest (n=4), during dipyridamole vasodilation (n=4), and during dobutamine stress (n=4). RESULTS: Myocardial blood flow (MBF) increased approximately 3-fold with both dipyridamole and dobutamine injections. Transmural MBV values measured by CMR were closely correlated with those measured by 99mTc method (CMR:MBV=6.2+/-1.3, 7.2+/-0.8, and 8.3+/-0.5 mL/100 g, at rest, with dipyridamole, and with dobutamine, respectively. 99mTc-RBC: MBV=6.1+/-0.5, 7.0+/-0.9, and 8.6+/-0.7 mL/100 g). Dobutamine stress significantly increased MBV by CMR (33%) and 99mTc methods (35%). During dipyridamole induced vasodilation, MBV increased non-significantly by 14% with the 99mTc method and 1% with CMR method, which agreed well with other reports. CONCLUSION: First-pass perfusion CMR with the injection of intravascular contrast agents is a promising non-invasive approach for the assessment of MBV both at rest and pharmacologically induced stress.
PURPOSE: Myocardial blood volume (MBV) may provide complementary information about myocardial oxygen needs and viability. The aim of this study is to examine a Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) perfusion method to quantify the changes in MBV, in comparison with the radiolabeled 99mTc-Red-Blood-Cell (RBC) method. METHODS: Normal mongrel dogs (n=12) were used in this study. Eight dogs were injected intravenously with dipyridamole, and 4 dogs were given dobutamine during the MR scans. CMR first-pass perfusion imaging was performed at rest and during the pharmacological stress. An intravascular contrast agent, Gadomer (Schering AG, Berlin, Germany), was injected (0.015 mmol/kg) as a bolus during the scans. A perfusion quantification method was applied to obtain MBV maps. Radiolabeled-RBCs were injected at the end of the study to measure reference MBV at rest (n=4), during dipyridamole vasodilation (n=4), and during dobutamine stress (n=4). RESULTS: Myocardial blood flow (MBF) increased approximately 3-fold with both dipyridamole and dobutamine injections. Transmural MBV values measured by CMR were closely correlated with those measured by 99mTc method (CMR:MBV=6.2+/-1.3, 7.2+/-0.8, and 8.3+/-0.5 mL/100 g, at rest, with dipyridamole, and with dobutamine, respectively. 99mTc-RBC: MBV=6.1+/-0.5, 7.0+/-0.9, and 8.6+/-0.7 mL/100 g). Dobutamine stress significantly increased MBV by CMR (33%) and 99mTc methods (35%). During dipyridamole induced vasodilation, MBV increased non-significantly by 14% with the 99mTc method and 1% with CMR method, which agreed well with other reports. CONCLUSION: First-pass perfusion CMR with the injection of intravascular contrast agents is a promising non-invasive approach for the assessment of MBV both at rest and pharmacologically induced stress.
Authors: Octavia Bane; Daniel C Lee; Brandon C Benefield; Kathleen R Harris; Neil R Chatterjee; James C Carr; Timothy J Carroll Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-12-07 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Kyle S McCommis; Thomas A Goldstein; Dana R Abendschein; Bernd Misselwitz; Thomas Pilgram; Robert J Gropler; Jie Zheng Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-02-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kyle S McCommis; Ioannis Koktzoglou; Haosen Zhang; Thomas A Goldstein; Benjamin E Northrup; Debiao Li; Robert J Gropler; Jie Zheng Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jeffrey M Dendy; Sean G Hughes; Jonathan H Soslow; Daniel E Clark; Cynthia B Paschal; John C Gore Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 10.065
Authors: Kyle S McCommis; Haosen Zhang; Thomas A Goldstein; Bernd Misselwitz; Dana R Abendschein; Robert J Gropler; Jie Zheng Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-11
Authors: Kyle S McCommis; Thomas A Goldstein; Dana R Abendschein; Pilar Herrero; Bernd Misselwitz; Robert J Gropler; Jie Zheng Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-11-20 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Sonia Nielles-Vallespin; Choukri Mekkaoui; Peter Gatehouse; Timothy G Reese; Jennifer Keegan; Pedro F Ferreira; Steve Collins; Peter Speier; Thorsten Feiweier; Ranil de Silva; Marcel P Jackowski; Dudley J Pennell; David E Sosnovik; David Firmin Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-09-21 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Alexander Liu; Rohan S Wijesurendra; Jane M Francis; Matthew D Robson; Stefan Neubauer; Stefan K Piechnik; Vanessa M Ferreira Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-12-09
Authors: Jannike Nickander; Magnus Lundin; Goran Abdula; Peder Sörensson; Stefania Rosmini; James C Moon; Peter Kellman; Andreas Sigfridsson; Martin Ugander Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-04-05 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Caroline M Colbert; Michael A Thomas; Ran Yan; Aleksandra Radjenovic; J Paul Finn; Peng Hu; Kim-Lien Nguyen Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 5.119