4.7 Article

Nonlinear myocardial signal intensity correction improves quantification of contrast-enhanced first-pass MR perfusion in humans

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 793-801

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21286

Keywords

myocardial perfusion; myocardial blood flow; myocardial perfusion reserve; contrast agent; gadolinium; dipyridamole

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To study the nonlinearity of myocardial signal intensity and gadolinium contrast concentration during first-pass perfusion MRI, and to compare quantitative perfusion estimates using nonlinear myocardial signal intensity correction. Materials and Methods: The nonlinearity of signal intensity and contrast concentration was simulated by magnetization modeling and evaluated in phantom measurements. A total of 10 healthy volunteers underwent rest and stress dual-bolus perfusion studies using an echo-planar imaging sequence at both short and long saturation-recovery delay times (TD70 and TD150). Perfusion estimates were compared before and after the correction. Results: The phantom data showed a linear relationship (R-2 = 1.00 and 0.99) of corrected signal intensity vs. contrast concentrations. Peak myocardial contrast concentration averaged 0.64 +/- 0.10 mmol . L-1 at rest and 0.91 +/- 0.21 mmol . L-1 during stress for TD70 and were similar for TD150 (P = not significant [NS]). The corrections were larger for stress than rest perfusion and larger for TD150 than TD70 studies (both P < 0.01). Perfusion estimates of TD70 and TD150 stress studies were significantly different before the correction (P < 0.01) but equivalent after the correction (P = NS). Conclusion: The nonlinearity between signal intensity and myocardial contrast concentration in perfusion MRI can be corrected through magnetization modeling. A nonlinear correction of myocardial signal intensity is feasible and improves quantitative perfusion analysis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available