BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 4D PCMRI can be used to quantify pulsatile hemodynamics in multiple cerebral arteries. The aim of this study was to compare 4D PCMRI and 2D PCMRI for assessments of pulsatile hemodynamics in major cerebral arteries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We scanned the internal carotid artery, the anterior cerebral artery, the basilar artery, and the middle cerebral artery in 10 subjects with a single 4D and multiple 2D PCMRI acquisitions by use of a 3T system and a 32-channel head coil. We assessed the agreement regarding net flow and the volume of arterial pulsatility (ΔV) for all vessels. RESULTS: 2D and 4D PCMRI produced highly correlated results, with r = 0.86 and r = 0.95 for ΔV and net flow, respectively (n = 69 vessels). These values increased to r = 0.93 and r = 0.97, respectively, during investigation of a subset of measurements with <5% variation in heart rate between the 4D and 2D acquisition (n = 31 vessels). Significant differences were found for ICA and MCA net flow (P = .004 and P < .001, respectively) and MCA ΔV (P = .006). However, these differences were attenuated and no longer significant when the subset with stable heart rate (n = 31 vessels) was analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: 4D PCMRI provides a powerful methodology to measure pulsatility of the larger cerebral arteries from a single acquisition. A large part of differences between measurements was attributed to physiologic variations. The results were consistent with 2D PCMRI.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 4D PCMRI can be used to quantify pulsatile hemodynamics in multiple cerebral arteries. The aim of this study was to compare 4D PCMRI and 2D PCMRI for assessments of pulsatile hemodynamics in major cerebral arteries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We scanned the internal carotid artery, the anterior cerebral artery, the basilar artery, and the middle cerebral artery in 10 subjects with a single 4D and multiple 2D PCMRI acquisitions by use of a 3T system and a 32-channel head coil. We assessed the agreement regarding net flow and the volume of arterial pulsatility (ΔV) for all vessels. RESULTS: 2D and 4D PCMRI produced highly correlated results, with r = 0.86 and r = 0.95 for ΔV and net flow, respectively (n = 69 vessels). These values increased to r = 0.93 and r = 0.97, respectively, during investigation of a subset of measurements with <5% variation in heart rate between the 4D and 2D acquisition (n = 31 vessels). Significant differences were found for ICA and MCA net flow (P = .004 and P < .001, respectively) and MCA ΔV (P = .006). However, these differences were attenuated and no longer significant when the subset with stable heart rate (n = 31 vessels) was analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: 4D PCMRI provides a powerful methodology to measure pulsatility of the larger cerebral arteries from a single acquisition. A large part of differences between measurements was attributed to physiologic variations. The results were consistent with 2D PCMRI.
Authors: Anders Wåhlin; Khalid Ambarki; Jón Hauksson; Richard Birgander; Jan Malm; Anders Eklund Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Elizabeth J Nett; Kevin M Johnson; Alex Frydrychowicz; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; Eric Schrauben; Christopher J Francois; Oliver Wieben Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Tianliang Gu; Frank R Korosec; Walter F Block; Sean B Fain; Quill Turk; Darren Lum; Yong Zhou; Thomas M Grist; Victor Haughton; Charles A Mistretta Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jing Liu; Michael J Redmond; Ethan K Brodsky; Andrew L Alexander; Aiming Lu; Francis J Thornton; Michael J Schulte; Thomas M Grist; James G Pipe; Walter F Block Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: W Chang; B Landgraf; K M Johnson; S Kecskemeti; Y Wu; J Velikina; H Rowley; O Wieben; C Mistretta; P Turski Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-10-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Grant A Bateman; Christopher R Levi; Peter Schofield; Yang Wang; Elizabeth C Lovett Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: T Schubert; M Pansini; O Bieri; C Stippich; S Wetzel; S Schaedelin; A von Hessling; F Santini Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Tora Dunås; Anders Wåhlin; Khalid Ambarki; Laleh Zarrinkoob; Richard Birgander; Jan Malm; Anders Eklund Journal: MAGMA Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Eric Schrauben; Anders Wåhlin; Khalid Ambarki; Erik Spaak; Jan Malm; Oliver Wieben; Anders Eklund Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: J Mikhail Kellawan; John W Harrell; Alejandro Roldan-Alzate; Oliver Wieben; William G Schrage Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Leonardo A Rivera-Rivera; Tilman Schubert; Patrick Turski; Kevin M Johnson; Sara E Berman; Howard A Rowley; Cynthia M Carlsson; Sterling C Johnson; Oliver Wieben Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Athena E Theyers; Benjamin I Goldstein; Arron Ws Metcalfe; Andrew D Robertson; Bradley J MacIntosh Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Tomas Vikner; Lars Nyberg; Madelene Holmgren; Jan Malm; Anders Eklund; Anders Wåhlin Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: E M Schrauben; K M Johnson; J Huston; A M Del Rio; S B Reeder; A Field; O Wieben Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 3.825