PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of selective arterial and portal venous liver perfusion imaging with spin labelling (SL) MRI, allowing separate labelling of each blood supply. METHODS: The portal venous perfusion was assessed with a pulsed EPISTAR technique and the arterial perfusion with a pseudo-continuous sequence. To explore precision and reproducibility, portal venous and arterial perfusion were separately quantified in 12 healthy volunteers pre- and postprandially (before and after meal intake). In a subgroup of 6 volunteers, the accuracy of the absolute portal perfusion and its relative postprandial change were compared with MRI flow measurements of the portal vein. RESULTS: The portal venous perfusion significantly increased from 63 ± 22 ml/100g/min preprandially to 132 ± 42 ml/100g/min postprandially. The arterial perfusion was lower with 35 ± 22 preprandially and 22 ± 30 ml/100g/min postprandially. The pre- and postprandial portal perfusion using SL correlated well with flow-based perfusion (r(2) = 0.71). Moreover, postprandial perfusion change correlated well between SL- and flow-based quantification (r(2) = 0.77). The SL results are in range with literature values. CONCLUSION: Selective spin labelling MRI of the portal venous and arterial blood supply successfully quantified liver perfusion. This non-invasive technique provides specific arterial and portal venous perfusion imaging and could benefit clinical settings where contrast agents are contraindicated. KEY POINTS: • Perfusion imaging of the liver by Spin Labelling MRI is feasible • Selective Spin Labelling MRI assessed portal venous and arterial liver perfusion separately • Spin Labelling based portal venous liver perfusion showed significant postprandial increase • Spin Labelling based portal perfusion correlated well with phase-contrast based portal perfusion • This non-invasive technique could benefit settings where contrast agents are contraindicated.
PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of selective arterial and portal venous liver perfusion imaging with spin labelling (SL) MRI, allowing separate labelling of each blood supply. METHODS: The portal venous perfusion was assessed with a pulsed EPISTAR technique and the arterial perfusion with a pseudo-continuous sequence. To explore precision and reproducibility, portal venous and arterial perfusion were separately quantified in 12 healthy volunteers pre- and postprandially (before and after meal intake). In a subgroup of 6 volunteers, the accuracy of the absolute portal perfusion and its relative postprandial change were compared with MRI flow measurements of the portal vein. RESULTS: The portal venous perfusion significantly increased from 63 ± 22 ml/100g/min preprandially to 132 ± 42 ml/100g/min postprandially. The arterial perfusion was lower with 35 ± 22 preprandially and 22 ± 30 ml/100g/min postprandially. The pre- and postprandial portal perfusion using SL correlated well with flow-based perfusion (r(2) = 0.71). Moreover, postprandial perfusion change correlated well between SL- and flow-based quantification (r(2) = 0.77). The SL results are in range with literature values. CONCLUSION: Selective spin labelling MRI of the portal venous and arterial blood supply successfully quantified liver perfusion. This non-invasive technique provides specific arterial and portal venous perfusion imaging and could benefit clinical settings where contrast agents are contraindicated. KEY POINTS: • Perfusion imaging of the liver by Spin Labelling MRI is feasible • Selective Spin Labelling MRI assessed portal venous and arterial liver perfusion separately • Spin Labelling based portal venous liver perfusion showed significant postprandial increase • Spin Labelling based portal perfusion correlated well with phase-contrast based portal perfusion • This non-invasive technique could benefit settings where contrast agents are contraindicated.
Authors: Wieland H Sommer; Steven Sourbron; Alexander Huppertz; Michael Ingrisch; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph J Zech Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2012-04
Authors: J A Detre; W Zhang; D A Roberts; A C Silva; D S Williams; D J Grandis; A P Koretsky; J S Leigh Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Cedric De Bazelaire; Neil M Rofsky; Guillaume Duhamel; M Dror Michaelson; Daniel George; David C Alsop Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Nathan S Artz; Elizabeth A Sadowski; Andrew L Wentland; Thomas M Grist; Songwon Seo; Arjang Djamali; Sean B Fain Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: T Iwao; A Toyonaga; H Shigemori; K Oho; T Sakai; C Tayama; H Masumoto; M Sato; K Tanikawa Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Shila Pazahr; Daniel Nanz; Cristina Rossi; Natalie Chuck; Ingo Stenger; Moritz C Wurnig; Fritz Schick; Andreas Boss Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Anita A Harteveld; Anneloes de Boer; Suzanne Lisa Franklin; Tim Leiner; Marijn van Stralen; Clemens Bos Journal: MAGMA Date: 2019-12-06 Impact factor: 2.310