Sudipto Dolui1, Ze Wang2, Danny J J Wang3, Raghav Mattay4, Mack Finkel5, Mark Elliott6, Lisa Desiderio6, Ben Inglis7, Bryon Mueller8, Randall B Stafford9, Lenore J Launer10, David R Jacobs11, R Nick Bryan6, John A Detre12. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Center for Functional Neuroimaging, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Center for Cognition and Brain Disorders and the Affiliated Hospital, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China Departments of Psychiatry and Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Raymond and Ruth Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. Henry H. Wheeler Jr. Brain Imaging Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 9. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 10. Laboratory of Epidemiology and Population Science, National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, MD, USA. 11. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 12. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Center for Functional Neuroimaging, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA detre@mail.med.upenn.edu.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Arterial spin labeling and phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging provide independent non-invasive methods for measuring cerebral blood flow. We compared global cerebral blood flow measurements obtained using pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling and phase contrast in 436 middle-aged subjects acquired at two sites in the NHLBI CARDIA multisite study. Cerebral blood flow measured by phase contrast (CBFPC: 55.76 ± 12.05 ml/100 g/min) was systematically higher (p < 0.001) and more variable than cerebral blood flow measured by pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling (CBFPCASL: 47.70 ± 9.75). The correlation between global cerebral blood flow values obtained from the two modalities was 0.59 (p < 0.001), explaining less than half of the observed variance in cerebral blood flow estimates. Well-established correlations of global cerebral blood flow with age and sex were similarly observed in both CBFPCASL and CBFPC CBFPC also demonstrated statistically significant site differences, whereas no such differences were observed in CBFPCASL No consistent velocity-dependent effects on pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling were observed, suggesting that pseudo-continuous labeling efficiency does not vary substantially across typical adult carotid and vertebral velocities, as has previously been suggested. CONCLUSIONS: Although CBFPCASL and CBFPC values show substantial similarity across the entire cohort, these data do not support calibration of CBFPCASL using CBFPC in individual subjects. The wide-ranging cerebral blood flow values obtained by both methods suggest that cerebral blood flow values are highly variable in the general population.
UNLABELLED: Arterial spin labeling and phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging provide independent non-invasive methods for measuring cerebral blood flow. We compared global cerebral blood flow measurements obtained using pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling and phase contrast in 436 middle-aged subjects acquired at two sites in the NHLBI CARDIA multisite study. Cerebral blood flow measured by phase contrast (CBFPC: 55.76 ± 12.05 ml/100 g/min) was systematically higher (p < 0.001) and more variable than cerebral blood flow measured by pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling (CBFPCASL: 47.70 ± 9.75). The correlation between global cerebral blood flow values obtained from the two modalities was 0.59 (p < 0.001), explaining less than half of the observed variance in cerebral blood flow estimates. Well-established correlations of global cerebral blood flow with age and sex were similarly observed in both CBFPCASL and CBFPC CBFPC also demonstrated statistically significant site differences, whereas no such differences were observed in CBFPCASL No consistent velocity-dependent effects on pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling were observed, suggesting that pseudo-continuous labeling efficiency does not vary substantially across typical adult carotid and vertebral velocities, as has previously been suggested. CONCLUSIONS: Although CBFPCASL and CBFPC values show substantial similarity across the entire cohort, these data do not support calibration of CBFPCASL using CBFPC in individual subjects. The wide-ranging cerebral blood flow values obtained by both methods suggest that cerebral blood flow values are highly variable in the general population.
Authors: Ze Wang; Geoffrey K Aguirre; Hengyi Rao; Jiongjiong Wang; María A Fernández-Seara; Anna R Childress; John A Detre Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-09-10 Impact factor: 2.546
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: Sina Aslan; Feng Xu; Peiying L Wang; Jinsoo Uh; Uma S Yezhuvath; Matthias van Osch; Hanzhang Lu Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-03 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
Authors: R Ghaznawi; M H T Zwartbol; J de Bresser; H J Kuijf; K L Vincken; I Rissanen; M I Geerlings; J Hendrikse Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Hua-Shan Liu; Abbas F Jawad; Nina Laney; Erum A Hartung; Susan L Furth; John A Detre Journal: J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-03-28 Impact factor: 3.447
Authors: Ganesh B Chand; Mohamad Habes; Sudipto Dolui; John A Detre; David A Wolk; Christos Davatzikos Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Feng Xu; Wenbo Li; Peiying Liu; Jun Hua; John J Strouse; James J Pekar; Hanzhang Lu; Peter C M van Zijl; Qin Qin Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2017-10-11 Impact factor: 5.038