PURPOSE: To determine whole-brain cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen (CMRO2 ), an improved imaging approach, based on radial encoding, termed radial OxFlow (rOxFlow), was developed to simultaneously quantify draining vein venous oxygen saturation (SvO2 ) and total cerebral blood flow (tCBF). METHODS: To evaluate the efficiency and precision of the rOxFlow sequence, 10 subjects were studied during a paradigm of repeated breath-holds with both rOxFlow and Cartesian OxFlow (cOxFlow) sequences. CMRO2 was calculated at baseline from OxFlow-measured data assuming an arterial O2 saturation of 97%, and the SvO2 and tCBF breath-hold responses were quantified. RESULTS: Average neurometabolic-vascular parameters across the 10 subjects for cOxFlow and rOxFlow were, respectively: SvO2 (%) baseline: 64.6 ± 8.0 versus 64.2 ± 6.6; SvO2 peak: 70.5 ± 8.5 versus 72.6 ± 5.4; tCBF (mL/min/100 g) baseline: 39.2 ± 3.8 versus 40.6 ± 8.0; tCBF peak: 53.2 ± 5.1 versus 56.1 ± 11.7; CMRO2 (µmol O2 /min/100 g) baseline: 111.5 ± 26.8 versus 120.1 ± 19.6. The above measures were not significantly different between sequences (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There was good agreement between the two methods in terms of the physiological responses measured. Comparing the two, rOxFlow provided higher temporal resolution and greater flexibility for reconstruction while maintaining high SNR. Magn Reson Med 79:217-223, 2018.
PURPOSE: To determine whole-brain cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen (CMRO2 ), an improved imaging approach, based on radial encoding, termed radial OxFlow (rOxFlow), was developed to simultaneously quantify draining vein venous oxygen saturation (SvO2 ) and total cerebral blood flow (tCBF). METHODS: To evaluate the efficiency and precision of the rOxFlow sequence, 10 subjects were studied during a paradigm of repeated breath-holds with both rOxFlow and Cartesian OxFlow (cOxFlow) sequences. CMRO2 was calculated at baseline from OxFlow-measured data assuming an arterial O2 saturation of 97%, and the SvO2 and tCBF breath-hold responses were quantified. RESULTS: Average neurometabolic-vascular parameters across the 10 subjects for cOxFlow and rOxFlow were, respectively: SvO2 (%) baseline: 64.6 ± 8.0 versus 64.2 ± 6.6; SvO2 peak: 70.5 ± 8.5 versus 72.6 ± 5.4; tCBF (mL/min/100 g) baseline: 39.2 ± 3.8 versus 40.6 ± 8.0; tCBF peak: 53.2 ± 5.1 versus 56.1 ± 11.7; CMRO2 (µmol O2 /min/100 g) baseline: 111.5 ± 26.8 versus 120.1 ± 19.6. The above measures were not significantly different between sequences (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There was good agreement between the two methods in terms of the physiological responses measured. Comparing the two, rOxFlow provided higher temporal resolution and greater flexibility for reconstruction while maintaining high SNR. Magn Reson Med 79:217-223, 2018.
Authors: Varsha Jain; Michael C Langham; Thomas F Floyd; Gaurav Jain; Jeremy F Magland; Felix W Wehrli Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Zachary B Rodgers; Varsha Jain; Erin K Englund; Michael C Langham; Felix W Wehrli Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Pei-Hsin Wu; Ana E Rodríguez-Soto; Zachary B Rodgers; Erin K Englund; Andrew Wiemken; Michael C Langham; John A Detre; Richard J Schwab; Wensheng Guo; Felix W Wehrli Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2019-07-15 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Pei-Hsin Wu; Ana E Rodríguez-Soto; Andrew Wiemken; Erin K Englund; Zachary B Rodgers; Michael C Langham; Richard J Schwab; John A Detre; Wensheng Guo; Felix W Wehrli Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 6.960