Literature DB >> 20577976

Comparison of myocardial perfusion estimates from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with four quantitative analysis methods.

Nathan A Pack1, Edward V R DiBella.   

Abstract

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI has been used to quantify myocardial perfusion in recent years. Published results have varied widely, possibly depending on the method used to analyze the dynamic perfusion data. Here, four quantitative analysis methods (two-compartment modeling, Fermi function modeling, model-independent analysis, and Patlak plot analysis) were implemented and compared for quantifying myocardial perfusion. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data were acquired in 20 human subjects at rest with low-dose (0.019 +/- 0.005 mmol/kg) bolus injections of gadolinium. Fourteen of these subjects were also imaged at adenosine stress (0.021 +/- 0.005 mmol/kg). Aggregate rest perfusion estimates were not significantly different between all four analysis methods. At stress, perfusion estimates were not significantly different between two-compartment modeling, model-independent analysis, and Patlak plot analysis. Stress estimates from the Fermi model were significantly higher (approximately 20%) than the other three methods. Myocardial perfusion reserve values were not significantly different between all four methods. Model-independent analysis resulted in the lowest model curve-fit errors. When more than just the first pass of data was analyzed, perfusion estimates from two-compartment modeling and model-independent analysis did not change significantly, unlike results from Fermi function modeling. (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20577976      PMCID: PMC3508727          DOI: 10.1002/mrm.22282

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Med        ISSN: 0740-3194            Impact factor:   4.668


  50 in total

Review 1.  Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association.

Authors:  Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2002-01-29       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Multislice first-pass cardiac perfusion MRI: validation in a model of myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Frederick H Epstein; James F London; Dana C Peters; Lino M Goncalves; Kwabena Agyeman; Joni Taylor; Robert S Balaban; Andrew E Arai
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Myocardial blood flow quantification with MRI by model-independent deconvolution.

Authors:  Michael Jerosch-Herold; Cory Swingen; Ravi Teja Seethamraju
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Relation between relative cerebral blood flow, relative cerebral blood volume, and mean transit time in patients with acute ischemic stroke determined by perfusion-weighted MRI.

Authors:  Oliver C Singer; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont; Christian Foerch; Astrid Stengel; Heiner Lanfermann; Matthias Sitzer; Tobias Neumann-Haefelin
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.200

5.  Time delay for arrival of MR contrast agent in collateral-dependent myocardium.

Authors:  Michael Jerosch-Herold; Xudong Hu; Naveen S Murthy; Ravi T Seethamraju
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 10.048

6.  Prebolus quantitative MR heart perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Herbert Köstler; Christian Ritter; Michael Lipp; Meinrad Beer; Dietbert Hahn; Jörn Sandstede
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.668

7.  Accurate assessment of the arterial input function during high-dose myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Peter D Gatehouse; Andrew G Elkington; Nicholas A Ablitt; Guang-Zhong Yang; Dudley J Pennell; David N Firmin
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Single- or dual-bolus approach for the assessment of myocardial perfusion reserve in quantitative MR perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Wolfgang Utz; Andreas Greiser; Thoralf Niendorf; Rainer Dietz; Jeanette Schulz-Menger
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.668

9.  Evaluation of heart perfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Gitte Nielsen; Thomas Fritz-Hansen; Christina G Dirks; Gorm B Jensen; Henrik B W Larsson
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  Reduced myocardial perfusion reserve and transmural perfusion gradient in heart transplant arteriopathy assessed by magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Olaf M Muehling; Norbert M Wilke; Prasad Panse; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Betsy V Wilson; Robert F Wilson; Leslie W Miller
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2003-09-17       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  33 in total

1.  Myocardial perfusion: near-automated evaluation from contrast-enhanced MR images obtained at rest and during vasodilator stress.

Authors:  Giacomo Tarroni; Cristiana Corsi; Patrick F Antkowiak; Federico Veronesi; Christopher M Kramer; Frederick H Epstein; James Walter; Claudio Lamberti; Roberto M Lang; Victor Mor-Avi; Amit R Patel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Improved quantification of myocardial blood flow using highly constrained back projection reconstruction.

Authors:  David Chen; Behzad Sharif; Rohan Dharmakumar; Louise E J Thomson; C Noel Bairey Merz; Daniel S Berman; Debiao Li
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Whole-heart, ungated, free-breathing, cardiac-phase-resolved myocardial perfusion MRI by using Continuous Radial Interleaved simultaneous Multi-slice acquisitions at sPoiled steady-state (CRIMP).

Authors:  Ye Tian; Jason Mendes; Brent Wilson; Alexander Ross; Ravi Ranjan; Edward DiBella; Ganesh Adluru
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 4.  Tracer-kinetic modeling of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and CT: a primer.

Authors:  Michael Ingrisch; Steven Sourbron
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2013-04-06       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 5.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: fundamentals and application to the evaluation of the peripheral perfusion.

Authors:  Yaron Gordon; Sasan Partovi; Matthias Müller-Eschner; Erick Amarteifio; Tobias Bäuerle; Marc-André Weber; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Fabian Rengier
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2014-04

6.  Quantitative pixelwise myocardial perfusion maps from first-pass perfusion MRI.

Authors:  A M Weng; C O Ritter; M Beer; D Hahn; H Köstler
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Constrained estimation of the arterial input function for myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Jacob U Fluckiger; Matthias C Schabel; Edward V R DiBella
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 4.668

8.  An empirical method for reducing variability and complexity of myocardial perfusion quantification by dual bolus cardiac MRI.

Authors:  Neil Chatterjee; Brandon C Benefield; Kathleen R Harris; Jacob U Fluckiger; Timothy Carroll; Daniel C Lee
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 9.  Challenges of cardiac image analysis in large-scale population-based studies.

Authors:  Pau Medrano-Gracia; Brett R Cowan; Avan Suinesiaputra; Alistair A Young
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.931

10.  Quantification of myocardial perfusion using CMR with a radial data acquisition: comparison with a dual-bolus method.

Authors:  Tae Ho Kim; Nathan A Pack; Liyong Chen; Edward V R DiBella
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2010-07-23       Impact factor: 5.364

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.