4.5 Review

Recommended Implementation of Arterial Spin-Labeled Perfusion MRI for Clinical Applications: A Consensus of the ISMRM Perfusion Study Group and the European Consortium for ASL in Dementia

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 73, Issue 1, Pages 102-116

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25197

Keywords

arterial spin labeling; perfusion; cerebral blood flow

Funding

  1. NIH [P41 EB015893, R01 EB014922, R01 NS081077, R01 NS066506, R01 MH084021, R01 MH080729, R21 EB013821]
  2. Dutch Heart Association [2010B274]
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/M005909/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Medical Research Council [1259754, 871481] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. EPSRC [EP/M005909/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review provides a summary statement of recommended implementations of arterial spin labeling (ASL) for clinical applications. It is a consensus of the ISMRM Perfusion Study Group and the European ASL in Dementia consortium, both of whom met to reach this consensus in October 2012 in Amsterdam. Although ASL continues to undergo rapid technical development, we believe that current ASL methods are robust and ready to provide useful clinical information, and that a consensus statement on recommended implementations will help the clinical community to adopt a standardized approach. In this review, we describe the major considerations and trade-offs in implementing an ASL protocol and provide specific recommendations for a standard approach. Our conclusion is that as an optimal default implementation, we recommend pseudo-continuous labeling, background suppression, a segmented three-dimensional readout without vascular crushing gradients, and calculation and presentation of both label/control difference images and cerebral blood flow in absolute units using a simplified model. Magn Reson Med 73:102-116, 2015. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available