D S Bolar1,2, B Gagoski3,4, D B Orbach4,5, E Smith6, E Adalsteinsson7,8, B R Rosen8, P E Grant3,4,9, R L Robertson4. 1. From the Department of Radiology (D.S.B.) dbolar@ucsd.edu. 2. Center for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (D.S.B.), UC San Diego, La Jolla, California. 3. Fetal Neonatal Neuroimaging and Developmental Science Center (B.G., P.E.G.). 4. Department of Radiology (B.G., D.B.O., P.E.G., R.L.R.). 5. Division of Neurointerventional Radiology (D.B.O.). 6. Department of Neurosurgery (E.S.). 7. Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science (E.A.), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 8. MGH/HST Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging (E.A., B.R.R.), Charlestown, Massachusetts. 9. Division of Newborn Medicine (P.E.G.), Department of Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Imaging CBF is important for managing pediatric moyamoya. Traditional arterial spin-labeling MR imaging detects delayed transit thorough diseased arteries but is inaccurate for measuring perfusion because of these delays. Velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling is insensitive to transit delay and well-suited for imaging Moyamoya perfusion. This study assesses the accuracy of a combined velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling and traditional pulsed arterial spin-labeling CBF approach in pediatric moyamoya, with comparison to blood flow patterns on conventional angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two neurologically stable pediatric patients with moyamoya and 5 asymptomatic siblings without frank moyamoya were imaged with velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling, pulsed arterial spin-labeling, and DSA (patients). Qualitative comparison was performed, followed by a systematic comparison using ASPECTS-based scoring. Quantitative pulsed arterial spin-labeling CBF and velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling CBF for the middle cerebral artery, anterior cerebral artery, and posterior cerebral artery territories were also compared. RESULTS: Qualitatively, velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling perfusion maps reflect the DSA parenchymal phase, regardless of postinjection timing. Conversely, pulsed arterial spin-labeling maps reflect the DSA appearance at postinjection times closer to the arterial spin-labeling postlabeling delay, regardless of vascular phase. ASPECTS comparison showed excellent agreement (88%, κ = 0.77, P < .001) between arterial spin-labeling and DSA, suggesting velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling and pulsed arterial spin-labeling capture key perfusion and transit delay information, respectively. CBF coefficient of variation, a marker of perfusion variability, was similar for velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling in patient regions of delayed-but-preserved perfusion compared to healthy asymptomatic sibling regions (coefficient of variation = 0.30 versus 0.26, respectively, Δcoefficient of variation = 0.04), but it was significantly different for pulsed arterial spin-labeling (coefficient of variation = 0.64 versus 0.34, Δcoefficient of variation = 0.30, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling offers a powerful approach to image perfusion in pediatric moyamoya due to transit delay insensitivity. Coupled with pulsed arterial spin-labeling for transit delay information, a volumetric MR imaging approach capturing key DSA information is introduced.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Imaging CBF is important for managing pediatric moyamoya. Traditional arterial spin-labeling MR imaging detects delayed transit thorough diseased arteries but is inaccurate for measuring perfusion because of these delays. Velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling is insensitive to transit delay and well-suited for imaging Moyamoya perfusion. This study assesses the accuracy of a combined velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling and traditional pulsed arterial spin-labeling CBF approach in pediatric moyamoya, with comparison to blood flow patterns on conventional angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two neurologically stable pediatric patients with moyamoya and 5 asymptomatic siblings without frank moyamoya were imaged with velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling, pulsed arterial spin-labeling, and DSA (patients). Qualitative comparison was performed, followed by a systematic comparison using ASPECTS-based scoring. Quantitative pulsed arterial spin-labeling CBF and velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling CBF for the middle cerebral artery, anterior cerebral artery, and posterior cerebral artery territories were also compared. RESULTS: Qualitatively, velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling perfusion maps reflect the DSA parenchymal phase, regardless of postinjection timing. Conversely, pulsed arterial spin-labeling maps reflect the DSA appearance at postinjection times closer to the arterial spin-labeling postlabeling delay, regardless of vascular phase. ASPECTS comparison showed excellent agreement (88%, κ = 0.77, P < .001) between arterial spin-labeling and DSA, suggesting velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling and pulsed arterial spin-labeling capture key perfusion and transit delay information, respectively. CBF coefficient of variation, a marker of perfusion variability, was similar for velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling in patient regions of delayed-but-preserved perfusion compared to healthy asymptomatic sibling regions (coefficient of variation = 0.30 versus 0.26, respectively, Δcoefficient of variation = 0.04), but it was significantly different for pulsed arterial spin-labeling (coefficient of variation = 0.64 versus 0.34, Δcoefficient of variation = 0.30, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Velocity-selective arterial spin-labeling offers a powerful approach to image perfusion in pediatric moyamoya due to transit delay insensitivity. Coupled with pulsed arterial spin-labeling for transit delay information, a volumetric MR imaging approach capturing key DSA information is introduced.
Authors: Jiongjiong Wang; Daniel J Licht; Geon-Ho Jahng; Chia-Shang Liu; Joan T Rubin; John Haselgrove; Robert A Zimmerman; John A Detre Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Audrey P Fan; Jia Guo; Mohammad M Khalighi; Praveen K Gulaka; Bin Shen; Jun Hyung Park; Harsh Gandhi; Dawn Holley; Omar Rutledge; Prachi Singh; Tom Haywood; Gary K Steinberg; Frederick T Chin; Greg Zaharchuk Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: David C Alsop; John A Detre; Xavier Golay; Matthias Günther; Jeroen Hendrikse; Luis Hernandez-Garcia; Hanzhang Lu; Bradley J MacIntosh; Laura M Parkes; Marion Smits; Matthias J P van Osch; Danny J J Wang; Eric C Wong; Greg Zaharchuk Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-04-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: James H Holmes; Mu-Lan Jen; Laura B Eisenmenger; Tilman Schubert; Patrick A Turski; Kevin M Johnson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-02-21 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Isabell K Bones; Suzanne L Franklin; Anita A Harteveld; Matthias J P van Osch; Sophie Schmid; Jeroen Hendrikse; Chrit Moonen; Marijn van Stralen; Clemens Bos Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Suzanne L Franklin; Isabell K Bones; Anita A Harteveld; Lydiane Hirschler; Marijn van Stralen; Qin Qin; Anneloes de Boer; Johannes M Hoogduin; Clemens Bos; Matthias J P van Osch; Sophie Schmid Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Anita Adriaantje Harteveld; Annemieke Simone Littooij; Max Maria van Noesel; Marijn van Stralen; Clemens Bos Journal: MAGMA Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 2.310