Karl P Kunze1, Stephan G Nekolla1,2, Christoph Rischpler1,2, Shelley HuaLei Zhang3, Carmel Hayes4, Nicolas Langwieser2,5, Tareq Ibrahim2,5, Karl-Ludwig Laugwitz2,5, Markus Schwaiger1,2. 1. Klinikum rechts der Isar der TU München, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Munich, Germany. 2. DZHK (Deutsches Zentrum für Herz-Kreislauf-Forschung e.V.) partner site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany. 3. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Department of Radiology, Boston, United States. 4. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany. 5. Klinikum rechts der Isar der TU München, Department of Cardiology, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Systematic differences with respect to myocardial perfusion quantification exist between DCE-MRI and PET. Using the potential of integrated PET/MRI, this study was conceived to compare perfusion quantification on the basis of simultaneously acquired 13 NH3 -ammonia PET and DCE-MRI data in patients at rest and stress. METHODS: Twenty-nine patients were examined on a 3T PET/MRI scanner. DCE-MRI was implemented in dual-sequence design and additional T1 mapping for signal normalization. Four different deconvolution methods including a modified version of the Fermi technique were compared against 13 NH3 -ammonia results. RESULTS: Cohort-average flow comparison yielded higher resting flows for DCE-MRI than for PET and, therefore, significantly lower DCE-MRI perfusion ratios under the common assumption of equal arterial and tissue hematocrit. Absolute flow values were strongly correlated in both slice-average (R2 = 0.82) and regional (R2 = 0.7) evaluations. Different DCE-MRI deconvolution methods yielded similar flow result with exception of an unconstrained Fermi method exhibiting outliers at high flows when compared with PET. CONCLUSION: Thresholds for Ischemia classification may not be directly tradable between PET and MRI flow values. Differences in perfusion ratios between PET and DCE-MRI may be lifted by using stress/rest-specific hematocrit conversion. Proper physiological constraints are advised in model-constrained deconvolution.
PURPOSE: Systematic differences with respect to myocardial perfusion quantification exist between DCE-MRI and PET. Using the potential of integrated PET/MRI, this study was conceived to compare perfusion quantification on the basis of simultaneously acquired 13 NH3 -ammonia PET and DCE-MRI data in patients at rest and stress. METHODS: Twenty-nine patients were examined on a 3T PET/MRI scanner. DCE-MRI was implemented in dual-sequence design and additional T1 mapping for signal normalization. Four different deconvolution methods including a modified version of the Fermi technique were compared against 13 NH3 -ammonia results. RESULTS: Cohort-average flow comparison yielded higher resting flows for DCE-MRI than for PET and, therefore, significantly lower DCE-MRI perfusion ratios under the common assumption of equal arterial and tissue hematocrit. Absolute flow values were strongly correlated in both slice-average (R2 = 0.82) and regional (R2 = 0.7) evaluations. Different DCE-MRI deconvolution methods yielded similar flow result with exception of an unconstrained Fermi method exhibiting outliers at high flows when compared with PET. CONCLUSION: Thresholds for Ischemia classification may not be directly tradable between PET and MRI flow values. Differences in perfusion ratios between PET and DCE-MRI may be lifted by using stress/rest-specific hematocrit conversion. Proper physiological constraints are advised in model-constrained deconvolution.
Authors: Jason Kraig Mendes; Ganesh Adluru; Devavrat Likhite; Merlin J Fair; Peter D Gatehouse; Ye Tian; Apoorva Pedgaonkar; Brent Wilson; Edward V R DiBella Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Grant T Gullberg; Uttam M Shrestha; Alexander I Veress; W Paul Segars; Jing Liu; Karen Ordovas; Youngho Seo Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 11.037
Authors: Kristopher D Knott; Claudia Camaioni; Anantharaman Ramasamy; Joao A Augusto; Anish N Bhuva; Hui Xue; Charlotte Manisty; Rebecca K Hughes; Louise A E Brown; Rajiv Amersey; Christos Bourantas; Peter Kellman; Sven Plein; James C Moon Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Marc Dewey; Maria Siebes; Marc Kachelrieß; Klaus F Kofoed; Pál Maurovich-Horvat; Konstantin Nikolaou; Wenjia Bai; Andreas Kofler; Robert Manka; Sebastian Kozerke; Amedeo Chiribiri; Tobias Schaeffter; Florian Michallek; Frank Bengel; Stephan Nekolla; Paul Knaapen; Mark Lubberink; Roxy Senior; Meng-Xing Tang; Jan J Piek; Tim van de Hoef; Johannes Martens; Laura Schreiber Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 32.419