4.7 Article

Optimization of Phase-Contrast MRI for the Quantification of Whole-Brain Cerebral Blood Flow

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 1126-1133

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24866

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [R01 MH084021, R01 NS067015, R01 AG042753, R21 NS085634]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Whole-brain cerebral blood flow (CBF) measured by phase-contrast MRI (PC-MRI) provides an important index for brain function. This work aimed to optimize the PC-MRI imaging protocol for accurate CBF measurements. Methods: Two studies were performed on a 3 Tesla system. In Study 1 (N = 12), we optimized in-plane resolution of PC-MRI acquisition for CBF quantification by considering accuracy, precision, and scan duration. In Study 2 (N = 7), we assessed the detrimental effect of nonperpendicular imaging slice orientation on CBF quantification. Both One-way analysis of variance with repeated measurement and Friedman test were used to examine the effects of resolution and angulation on CBF quantification. Additionally, we evaluated the inter-rater reliability in PC-MRI data processing. Results: Our results showed that CBF measurement with 0.7 mm resolution could be overestimated by up to 13.3% when compared with 0.4 mm resolution. Moreover, CBF could also be overestimated by up to 18.8% when the slice orientation is deviated by 30 degrees from the ideal angulation. However, within 10 degrees of the ideal slice orientation, estimated CBF was not significantly different from each other (P = 0.23 and 0.45 for internal carotid artery and vertebral artery, respectively). Inter-rater difference was <3%. Conclusion: For fast and accurate quantification of whole-brain CBF with PC-MRI, we recommend the use of an imaging resolution of 0.5 mm and a slice orientation that is less than 10 degrees from vessel's axial plane.

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