Sandra M Meyers1, Roger Tam2,3, Jimmy S Lee3, Shannon H Kolind4, Irene M Vavasour3, Emilie Mackie4, Yinshan Zhao4, Cornelia Laule3,5,6, Burkhard Mädler7, David K B Li2,3,4, Alex L MacKay1,3, Anthony L Traboulsee4. 1. Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2. MS/MRI Research Group, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 3. Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4. Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 5. Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 6. International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 7. Philips Healthcare, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether differences in hydration state, which could arise from routine clinical procedures such as overnight fasting, affect brain total water content (TWC) and brain volume measured with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty healthy volunteers were scanned with a 3T MR scanner four times: day 1, baseline scan; day 2, hydrated scan after consuming 3L of water over 12 hours; day 3, dehydrated scan after overnight fasting of 9 hours, followed by another scan 1 hour later for reproducibility. The following MRI data were collected: T2 relaxation (for TWC measurement), inversion recovery (for T1 measurement), and 3D T1 -weighted (for brain volumes). Body weight and urine specific gravity were also measured. TWC was calculated by fitting the T2 relaxation data with a nonnegative least-squares algorithm, with corrections for T1 relaxation and image signal inhomogeneity and normalization to ventricular cerebrospinal fluid. Brain volume changes were measured using SIENA. TWC means were calculated within 14 tissue regions. RESULTS: Despite indications of dehydration as demonstrated by increases in urine specific gravity (P = 0.03) and decreases in body weight (P = 0.001) between hydrated and dehydrated scans, there was no measurable change in TWC (within any brain region) or brain volume between hydration states. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that within a range of physiologic conditions commonly encountered in routine clinical scans (no pretreatment with hydration, well hydrated before MRI, and overnight fasting), brain TWC and brain volumes are not substantially affected in a healthy control cohort. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:296-304.
PURPOSE: To determine whether differences in hydration state, which could arise from routine clinical procedures such as overnight fasting, affect brain total water content (TWC) and brain volume measured with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty healthy volunteers were scanned with a 3T MR scanner four times: day 1, baseline scan; day 2, hydrated scan after consuming 3L of water over 12 hours; day 3, dehydrated scan after overnight fasting of 9 hours, followed by another scan 1 hour later for reproducibility. The following MRI data were collected: T2 relaxation (for TWC measurement), inversion recovery (for T1 measurement), and 3D T1 -weighted (for brain volumes). Body weight and urine specific gravity were also measured. TWC was calculated by fitting the T2 relaxation data with a nonnegative least-squares algorithm, with corrections for T1 relaxation and image signal inhomogeneity and normalization to ventricular cerebrospinal fluid. Brain volume changes were measured using SIENA. TWC means were calculated within 14 tissue regions. RESULTS: Despite indications of dehydration as demonstrated by increases in urine specific gravity (P = 0.03) and decreases in body weight (P = 0.001) between hydrated and dehydrated scans, there was no measurable change in TWC (within any brain region) or brain volume between hydration states. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that within a range of physiologic conditions commonly encountered in routine clinical scans (no pretreatment with hydration, well hydrated before MRI, and overnight fasting), brain TWC and brain volumes are not substantially affected in a healthy control cohort. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:296-304.
Authors: Steven Oleson; Abigail Cox; Zhongming Liu; M Preeti Sivasankar; Kun-Han Lu Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Xiao-Qi Ding; Andrew A Maudsley; Ulrich Schweiger; Birte Schmitz; Ralf Lichtinghagen; Stefan Bleich; Heinrich Lanfermann; Kai G Kahl Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Gregory A Book; Shashwath A Meda; Ronald Janssen; Alecia D Dager; Andrew Poppe; Michael C Stevens; Michal Assaf; David Glahn; Godfrey D Pearlson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: O Curzio; S Calderoni; S Maestro; G Rossi; C F De Pasquale; V Belmonti; F Apicella; F Muratori; A Retico Journal: Eur Psychiatry Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 5.361