BACKGROUND: The dual-bolus protocol enables accurate quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) by first-pass perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). However, despite the advantages and increasing demand for the dual-bolus method for accurate quantification of MBF, thus far, it has not been widely used in the field of quantitative perfusion CMR. The main reasons for this are that the setup for the dual-bolus method is complex and requires a state-of-the-art injector and there is also a lack of post processing software. As a solution to one of these problems, we have devised a universal dual-bolus injection scheme for use in a clinical setting. The purpose of this study is to show the setup and feasibility of the universal dual-bolus injection scheme. METHODS: The universal dual-bolus injection scheme was tested using multiple combinations of different contrast agents, contrast agent dose, power injectors, perfusion sequences, and CMR scanners. This included 3 different contrast agents (Gd-DO3A-butrol, Gd-DTPA and Gd-DOTA), 4 different doses (0.025 mmol/kg, 0.05 mmol/kg, 0.075 mmol/kg and 0.1 mmol/kg), 2 different types of injectors (with and without "pause" function), 5 different sequences (turbo field echo (TFE), balanced TFE, k-space and time (k-t) accelerated TFE, k-t accelerated balanced TFE, turbo fast low-angle shot) and 3 different CMR scanners from 2 different manufacturers. The relation between the time width of dilute contrast agent bolus curve and cardiac output was obtained to determine the optimal predefined pause duration between dilute and neat contrast agent injection. RESULTS: 161 dual-bolus perfusion scans were performed. Three non-injector-related technical errors were observed (1.9%). No injector-related errors were observed. The dual-bolus scheme worked well in all the combinations of parameters if the optimal predefined pause was used. Linear regression analysis showed that the optimal duration for the predefined pause is 25s to separate the dilute and neat contrast agent bolus curves if 0.1 mmol/kg dose of Gd-DO3A-butrol is used. CONCLUSION: The universal dual-bolus injection scheme does not require sophisticated double-head power injector function and is a feasible technique to obtain reasonable arterial input function curves for absolute MBF quantification.
BACKGROUND: The dual-bolus protocol enables accurate quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) by first-pass perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). However, despite the advantages and increasing demand for the dual-bolus method for accurate quantification of MBF, thus far, it has not been widely used in the field of quantitative perfusion CMR. The main reasons for this are that the setup for the dual-bolus method is complex and requires a state-of-the-art injector and there is also a lack of post processing software. As a solution to one of these problems, we have devised a universal dual-bolus injection scheme for use in a clinical setting. The purpose of this study is to show the setup and feasibility of the universal dual-bolus injection scheme. METHODS: The universal dual-bolus injection scheme was tested using multiple combinations of different contrast agents, contrast agent dose, power injectors, perfusion sequences, and CMR scanners. This included 3 different contrast agents (Gd-DO3A-butrol, Gd-DTPA and Gd-DOTA), 4 different doses (0.025 mmol/kg, 0.05 mmol/kg, 0.075 mmol/kg and 0.1 mmol/kg), 2 different types of injectors (with and without "pause" function), 5 different sequences (turbo field echo (TFE), balanced TFE, k-space and time (k-t) accelerated TFE, k-t accelerated balanced TFE, turbo fast low-angle shot) and 3 different CMR scanners from 2 different manufacturers. The relation between the time width of dilute contrast agent bolus curve and cardiac output was obtained to determine the optimal predefined pause duration between dilute and neat contrast agent injection. RESULTS: 161 dual-bolus perfusion scans were performed. Three non-injector-related technical errors were observed (1.9%). No injector-related errors were observed. The dual-bolus scheme worked well in all the combinations of parameters if the optimal predefined pause was used. Linear regression analysis showed that the optimal duration for the predefined pause is 25s to separate the dilute and neat contrast agent bolus curves if 0.1 mmol/kg dose of Gd-DO3A-butrol is used. CONCLUSION: The universal dual-bolus injection scheme does not require sophisticated double-head power injector function and is a feasible technique to obtain reasonable arterial input function curves for absolute MBF quantification.
Authors: Li-Yueh Hsu; Kenneth L Rhoads; Jessica E Holly; Peter Kellman; Anthony H Aletras; Andrew E Arai Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: A Bailly; J Lipiecki; P Chabrot; A Alfidja; J M Garcier; S Ughetto; J Ponsonnaille; L Boyer Journal: Surg Radiol Anat Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 1.246
Authors: Amit R Patel; Patrick F Antkowiak; Kiran R Nandalur; Amy M West; Michael Salerno; Vishal Arora; John Christopher; Frederick H Epstein; Christopher M Kramer Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Andreas Schuster; Niloufar Zarinabad; Masaki Ishida; Matthew Sinclair; Jeroen Phm van den Wijngaard; Geraint Morton; Gilion Ltf Hautvast; Boris Bigalke; Pepijn van Horssen; Nicolas Smith; Jos Ae Spaan; Maria Siebes; Amedeo Chiribiri; Eike Nagel Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Andreas Schuster; Matthew Sinclair; Niloufar Zarinabad; Masaki Ishida; Jeroen P H M van den Wijngaard; Matthias Paul; Pepijn van Horssen; Shazia T Hussain; Divaka Perera; Tobias Schaeffter; Jos A E Spaan; Maria Siebes; Eike Nagel; Amedeo Chiribiri Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Cian M Scannell; Adriana D M Villa; Jack Lee; Marcel Breeuwer; Amedeo Chiribiri Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 10.048
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
Authors: David Chen; Behzad Sharif; Xiaoming Bi; Janet Wei; Louise E J Thomson; C Noel Bairey Merz; Daniel S Berman; Debiao Li Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jeff L Zhang; Chris C Conlin; Kristi Carlston; Luke Xie; Daniel Kim; Glen Morrell; Kathryn Morton; Vivian S Lee Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 4.044