Neil Chatterjee1,2, Brandon C Benefield3, Kathleen R Harris1, Jacob U Fluckiger4, Timothy Carroll5,6, Daniel C Lee1,3,4. 1. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 3. Feinberg Cardiovascular Research Institute, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. GE Medical, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 6. University of Chicago, Department of Medical Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Myocardial perfusion can be quantified using the "dual bolus" technique, which uses two separate contrast boluses to avoid signal nonlinearity in the blood pool. This technique relies on knowing the precise ratio of contrast concentrations between the two boluses. In this study, we investigated the variability found in these ratios, as well as the error it introduces, and developed a method for correction. METHODS: Five dogs received dual bolus myocardial perfusion MRI scans. Perfusion was calculated separately using assumed contrast dilution ratios and empirically determined contrast ratios. Perfusion was compared with reference standard fluorescent microspheres. The same technique was then applied to a cohort of six patients with no significant coronary artery stenosis by cardiac catheterization. RESULTS: Assumed contrast dilution ratios were 10:1 for all animal and patient scans. Empirically derived contrast ratios were significantly different for animal (8.51:1 ± 1.53:1, P < 0.001) and patient scans (7.32:1 ± 2.27:1, P < 0.01). Incorporating empirically derived ratios for animal scans improved correlation with microspheres from 0.84 to 0.90 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Variability in dual bolus contrast concentration ratios is an important source of experimental error, especially outside of a carefully controlled laboratory setting. Empirically deriving the correct ratio is feasible and improves the accuracy of quantitative perfusion measurements. Magn Reson Med 77:2347-2355, 2017.
PURPOSE: Myocardial perfusion can be quantified using the "dual bolus" technique, which uses two separate contrast boluses to avoid signal nonlinearity in the blood pool. This technique relies on knowing the precise ratio of contrast concentrations between the two boluses. In this study, we investigated the variability found in these ratios, as well as the error it introduces, and developed a method for correction. METHODS: Five dogs received dual bolus myocardial perfusion MRI scans. Perfusion was calculated separately using assumed contrast dilution ratios and empirically determined contrast ratios. Perfusion was compared with reference standard fluorescent microspheres. The same technique was then applied to a cohort of six patients with no significant coronary artery stenosis by cardiac catheterization. RESULTS: Assumed contrast dilution ratios were 10:1 for all animal and patient scans. Empirically derived contrast ratios were significantly different for animal (8.51:1 ± 1.53:1, P < 0.001) and patient scans (7.32:1 ± 2.27:1, P < 0.01). Incorporating empirically derived ratios for animal scans improved correlation with microspheres from 0.84 to 0.90 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Variability in dual bolus contrast concentration ratios is an important source of experimental error, especially outside of a carefully controlled laboratory setting. Empirically deriving the correct ratio is feasible and improves the accuracy of quantitative perfusion measurements. Magn Reson Med 77:2347-2355, 2017.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Francis J Klocke; Michael G Baird; Beverly H Lorell; Timothy M Bateman; Joseph V Messer; Daniel S Berman; Patrick T O'Gara; Blase A Carabello; Richard O Russell; Manuel D Cerqueira; Martin G St John Sutton; Anthony N DeMaria; James E Udelson; J Ward Kennedy; Mario S Verani; Kim Allan Williams; Elliott M Antman; Sidney C Smith; Joseph S Alpert; Gabriel Gregoratos; Jeffrey L Anderson; Loren F Hiratzka; David P Faxon; Sharon Ann Hunt; Valentin Fuster; Alice K Jacobs; Raymond J Gibbons; Richard O Russell Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jan G J Groothuis; Frans P P J Kremers; Aernout M Beek; Stijn L Brinckman; Alvin C Tuinenburg; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Albert C van Rossum; Mark B M Hofman Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: J T Keijer; A C van Rossum; M J van Eenige; A J Karreman; M B Hofman; J Valk; C A Visser Journal: Am Heart J Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: J Schwitter; D Nanz; S Kneifel; K Bertschinger; M Büchi; P R Knüsel; B Marincek; T F Lüscher; G K von Schulthess Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-05-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: P S Tofts; G Brix; D L Buckley; J L Evelhoch; E Henderson; M V Knopp; H B Larsson; T Y Lee; N A Mayr; G J Parker; R E Port; J Taylor; R M Weisskoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Nivedita K Naresh; Hassan Haji-Valizadeh; Pascale J Aouad; Matthew J Barrett; Kelvin Chow; Ann B Ragin; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr; Daniel C Lee; Daniel Kim Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Lexiaozi Fan; Kyungpyo Hong; Li-Yueh Hsu; James C Carr; Bradley D Allen; Daniel C Lee; Daniel Kim Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-04-04 Impact factor: 3.737