Nivedita K Naresh1, Xiao Chen1, Eric Moran1, Yikui Tian2, Brent A French1, Frederick H Epstein1,3. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Preclinical imaging of myocardial blood flow (MBF) can elucidate molecular mechanisms underlying cardiovascular disease. We compared the repeatability and variability of two methods, first-pass MRI and arterial spin labeling (ASL), for imaging MBF in mice. METHODS: Quantitative perfusion MRI in mice was performed using both methods at rest, with a vasodilator, and one day after myocardial infarction. Image quality (score of 1-5; 5 best), between-session coefficient of variability (CVbs ), intra-user coefficient of variability (CVintra-user ), and inter-user coefficient of variability (CVinter-user ) were assessed. Acquisition time was 1-2 min for first-pass MRI and approximately 40 min for ASL. RESULTS: Image quality was higher for ASL (3.94 ± 0.09 versus 2.88 ± 0.10; P < 0.05). Infarct zone CVbs was lower with first-pass (17 ± 3% versus 46 ± 9%; P < 0.05). The stress perfusion CVintra-user was lower for ASL (3 ± 1% versus 14 ± 3%; P < 0.05). The stress perfusion CVinter-user was lower for ASL (4 ± 1% versus 17 ± 4%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: For low MBF conditions such as infarct, first-pass MRI is preferred due to better repeatability and variability. At high MBF such as at vasodilation, ASL may be more suitable due to superior image quality and lower user variability. First-pass MRI has a substantial speed advantage. Magn Reson Med 75:2394-2405, 2016.
PURPOSE: Preclinical imaging of myocardial blood flow (MBF) can elucidate molecular mechanisms underlying cardiovascular disease. We compared the repeatability and variability of two methods, first-pass MRI and arterial spin labeling (ASL), for imaging MBF in mice. METHODS: Quantitative perfusion MRI in mice was performed using both methods at rest, with a vasodilator, and one day after myocardial infarction. Image quality (score of 1-5; 5 best), between-session coefficient of variability (CVbs ), intra-user coefficient of variability (CVintra-user ), and inter-user coefficient of variability (CVinter-user ) were assessed. Acquisition time was 1-2 min for first-pass MRI and approximately 40 min for ASL. RESULTS: Image quality was higher for ASL (3.94 ± 0.09 versus 2.88 ± 0.10; P < 0.05). Infarct zone CVbs was lower with first-pass (17 ± 3% versus 46 ± 9%; P < 0.05). The stress perfusion CVintra-user was lower for ASL (3 ± 1% versus 14 ± 3%; P < 0.05). The stress perfusion CVinter-user was lower for ASL (4 ± 1% versus 17 ± 4%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: For low MBF conditions such as infarct, first-pass MRI is preferred due to better repeatability and variability. At high MBF such as at vasodilation, ASL may be more suitable due to superior image quality and lower user variability. First-pass MRI has a substantial speed advantage. Magn Reson Med 75:2394-2405, 2016.
Authors: Michael A Chappell; Mark W Woolrich; Samira Kazan; Peter Jezzard; Stephen J Payne; Bradley J MacIntosh Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Adrienne E Campbell-Washburn; Anthony N Price; Jack A Wells; David L Thomas; Roger J Ordidge; Mark F Lythgoe Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Marcelo F Di Carli; David Charytan; Graham T McMahon; Peter Ganz; Sharmila Dorbala; Heinrich R Schelbert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bastiaan J van Nierop; Bram F Coolen; Wouter J R Dijk; Arjan D Hendriks; Larry de Graaf; Klaas Nicolay; Gustav J Strijkers Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Venkatesh L Murthy; Masanao Naya; Courtney R Foster; Mariya Gaber; Jon Hainer; Josh Klein; Sharmila Dorbala; Ron Blankstein; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mario Marzilli; C Noel Bairey Merz; William E Boden; Robert O Bonow; Paola G Capozza; William M Chilian; Anthony N DeMaria; Giacinta Guarini; Alda Huqi; Doralisa Morrone; Manesh R Patel; William S Weintraub Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Merry L Lindsey; Zamaneh Kassiri; Jitka A I Virag; Lisandra E de Castro Brás; Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Umesh C Sharma; Swati D Sonkawade; Andrew Baird; Min Chen; Shirley Xu; Sandra Sexton; Anurag K Singh; Adrienne Groman; Steven G Turowski; Joseph A Spernyak; Supriya D Mahajan; Saraswati Pokharel Journal: Cardiooncology Date: 2018-12-18