K-O Lövblad1, M-L Montandon1, M Viallon2, C Rodriguez3, S Toma3, X Golay4, P Giannakopoulos3, S Haller5. 1. From the Divisions of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (K.-O.L., M.-L.M., M.V., S.H.). 2. From the Divisions of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (K.-O.L., M.-L.M., M.V., S.H.) CREATIS (M.V.), UMR CNRS 5220-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U1044, INSA de Lyon, Université de Lyon, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint Etienne, Saint Etienne, France. 3. Psychiatry (C.R., S.T., P.G.), Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Institute of Neurology (X.G.), University College London, London, United Kingdom. 5. From the Divisions of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (K.-O.L., M.-L.M., M.V., S.H.) sven.haller@hcuge.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Arterial spin-labeling is a noninvasive method to map cerebral blood flow, which might be useful for early diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases. We directly compared 2 arterial spin-labeling techniques in healthy elderly controls and individuals with mild cognitive impairment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the local ethics committee and included 198 consecutive healthy controls (mean age, 73.65 ± 4.02 years) and 43 subjects with mild cognitive impairment (mean age, 73.38 ± 5.85 years). Two pulsed arterial spin-labeling sequences were performed at 3T: proximal inversion with a control for off-resonance effects (PICORE) and flow-sensitive alternating inversion recovery technique (FAIR). Relative cerebral blood flow maps were calculated by using commercial software and standard parameters. Data analysis included spatial normalization of gray matter-corrected relative CBF maps, whole-brain average, and voxelwise comparison of both arterial spin-labeling sequences. RESULTS: Overall, FAIR yielded higher relative CBF values compared with PICORE (controls, 32.7 ± 7.1 versus 30.0 ± 13.1 mL/min/100 g, P = .05; mild cognitive impairment, 29.8 ± 5.4 versus 26.2 ± 8.6 mL/min/100 g, P < .05; all, 32.2 ± 6.8 versus 29.3 ± 12.3 mL/min/100 g, P < .05). FAIR had lower variability (controls, 36.2% versus 68.8%, P < .00001; mild cognitive impairment, 18.9% versus 22.9%, P < .0001; all, 34.4% versus 64.9% P < .00001). The detailed voxelwise analysis revealed a higher signal for FAIR, notably in both convexities, while PICORE had higher signal predominantly in deep cerebral regions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, FAIR had higher estimated relative CBF and lower interindividual variability than PICORE. In more detail, there were regional differences between both arterial spin-labeling sequences. In summary, these results highlight the need to calibrate arterial spin-labeling sequences.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Arterial spin-labeling is a noninvasive method to map cerebral blood flow, which might be useful for early diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases. We directly compared 2 arterial spin-labeling techniques in healthy elderly controls and individuals with mild cognitive impairment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the local ethics committee and included 198 consecutive healthy controls (mean age, 73.65 ± 4.02 years) and 43 subjects with mild cognitive impairment (mean age, 73.38 ± 5.85 years). Two pulsed arterial spin-labeling sequences were performed at 3T: proximal inversion with a control for off-resonance effects (PICORE) and flow-sensitive alternating inversion recovery technique (FAIR). Relative cerebral blood flow maps were calculated by using commercial software and standard parameters. Data analysis included spatial normalization of gray matter-corrected relative CBF maps, whole-brain average, and voxelwise comparison of both arterial spin-labeling sequences. RESULTS: Overall, FAIR yielded higher relative CBF values compared with PICORE (controls, 32.7 ± 7.1 versus 30.0 ± 13.1 mL/min/100 g, P = .05; mild cognitive impairment, 29.8 ± 5.4 versus 26.2 ± 8.6 mL/min/100 g, P < .05; all, 32.2 ± 6.8 versus 29.3 ± 12.3 mL/min/100 g, P < .05). FAIR had lower variability (controls, 36.2% versus 68.8%, P < .00001; mild cognitive impairment, 18.9% versus 22.9%, P < .0001; all, 34.4% versus 64.9% P < .00001). The detailed voxelwise analysis revealed a higher signal for FAIR, notably in both convexities, while PICORE had higher signal predominantly in deep cerebral regions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, FAIR had higher estimated relative CBF and lower interindividual variability than PICORE. In more detail, there were regional differences between both arterial spin-labeling sequences. In summary, these results highlight the need to calibrate arterial spin-labeling sequences.
Authors: Nolan S Hartkamp; Esben T Petersen; Jill B De Vis; Reinoud P H Bokkers; Jeroen Hendrikse Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2012-07-15 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: M Pagani; B Dessi; S Morbelli; A Brugnolo; D Salmaso; A Piccini; D Mazzei; G Villavecchia; S A Larsson; G Rodriguez; F Nobili Journal: Curr Alzheimer Res Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: David C Alsop; John A Detre; Xavier Golay; Matthias Günther; Jeroen Hendrikse; Luis Hernandez-Garcia; Hanzhang Lu; Bradley J MacIntosh; Laura M Parkes; Marion Smits; Matthias J P van Osch; Danny J J Wang; Eric C Wong; Greg Zaharchuk Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-04-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Sudipto Dolui; Marta Vidorreta; Ze Wang; Ilya M Nasrallah; Abass Alavi; David A Wolk; John A Detre Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Manjunathan Nanjappa; Thomas Troalen; Josef Pfeuffer; Bénédicte Maréchal; Tom Hilbert; Tobias Kober; Fabien C Schneider; Pierre Croisille; Magalie Viallon Journal: MAGMA Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 2.310