Alex F Goodall1,2, David A Broadbent1, Raluca B Dumitru3,4, David L Buckley5, Ai Lyn Tan3,4, Maya H Buch3,4,6, John D Biglands1,3. 1. Department Of Medical Physics and Engineering, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK. 2. Department of Medical Imaging and Medical Physics, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK. 3. NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, UK. 4. Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University Of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 5. Biomedical Imaging, University Of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 6. Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of extracellular volume-fraction (ECV) measurement, and time to achieve contrast equilibrium (CE), in healthy muscles, and to determine whether in-flow and partial-volume errors in the femoral artery affect measurements, and if there are differences in the partition coefficient (λ) between muscles. METHODS: T1 was measured in the biceps femoris, vastus intermedius, femoral artery and aorta of 10 healthy participants. This was repeated alternately between the thigh and aorta for ≥25 min following a bolus of gadoterate meglumine. λ was calculated for each muscle/blood measurement. Time to CE was assessed semi-quantitatively. RESULTS: 8/10 participants achieved CE. Time to CE = 19±2 min (mean ± 95% confidence interval). Measured λ: biceps femoris/aorta = 0.210±0.034, vastus intermedius/aorta = 0.165±0.015, biceps femoris/femoral artery = 0.265±0.054, vastus intermedius/femoral artery = 0.211±0.026. There were significant differences in λ between the muscles when using the same vessel (p < 0.05), and between λ calculated in the same muscle when using different vessels (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ECV measurements in the thigh are clinically feasible. The use of the femoral artery for the blood measurement is associated with small but significant differences in λ. ECV measurements are sensitive to differences between muscles within the healthy thigh. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper determines the time to contrast equilibrium in the healthy thigh and describes a method for measuring accurately ECV in skeletal muscle. This can aid in the diagnosis and understanding of inflammatory auto-immune diseases.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of extracellular volume-fraction (ECV) measurement, and time to achieve contrast equilibrium (CE), in healthy muscles, and to determine whether in-flow and partial-volume errors in the femoral artery affect measurements, and if there are differences in the partition coefficient (λ) between muscles. METHODS: T1 was measured in the biceps femoris, vastus intermedius, femoral artery and aorta of 10 healthy participants. This was repeated alternately between the thigh and aorta for ≥25 min following a bolus of gadoterate meglumine. λ was calculated for each muscle/blood measurement. Time to CE was assessed semi-quantitatively. RESULTS: 8/10 participants achieved CE. Time to CE = 19±2 min (mean ± 95% confidence interval). Measured λ: biceps femoris/aorta = 0.210±0.034, vastus intermedius/aorta = 0.165±0.015, biceps femoris/femoral artery = 0.265±0.054, vastus intermedius/femoral artery = 0.211±0.026. There were significant differences in λ between the muscles when using the same vessel (p < 0.05), and between λ calculated in the same muscle when using different vessels (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ECV measurements in the thigh are clinically feasible. The use of the femoral artery for the blood measurement is associated with small but significant differences in λ. ECV measurements are sensitive to differences between muscles within the healthy thigh. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper determines the time to contrast equilibrium in the healthy thigh and describes a method for measuring accurately ECV in skeletal muscle. This can aid in the diagnosis and understanding of inflammatory auto-immune diseases.
Authors: Greg J Stanisz; Ewa E Odrobina; Joseph Pun; Michael Escaravage; Simon J Graham; Michael J Bronskill; R Mark Henkelman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: X Zhang; E T Petersen; E Ghariq; J B De Vis; A G Webb; W M Teeuwisse; J Hendrikse; M J P van Osch Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Daniel R Messroghli; Aleksandra Radjenovic; Sebastian Kozerke; David M Higgins; Mohan U Sivananthan; John P Ridgway Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Rosario J Perea; Jose T Ortiz-Perez; Manel Sole; M Teresa Cibeira; Teresa M de Caralt; Susanna Prat-Gonzalez; Xavier Bosch; Antonio Berruezo; Marcelo Sanchez; Joan Blade Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2014-11-26
Authors: Peter Kellman; Joel R Wilson; Hui Xue; W Patricia Bandettini; Sujata M Shanbhag; Kirk M Druey; Martin Ugander; Andrew E Arai Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 5.364