Myocardial arterial spin labeling in systole and diastole using flow-sensitive alternating inversion recovery with parallel imaging and compressed sensing

Comparison of Myocardial Blood Flow Quantification Models for Double ECG Gating Arterial Spin Labeling MRI: Reproducibility Assessment

BACKGROUND

Arterial spin labeling (ASL) allows non-invasive quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF). Double-ECG gating (DG) ASL is more robust to heart rate variability than single-ECG gating (SG), but its reproducibility requires further investigation. Moreover, the existence of multiple quantification models hinders its application. Frequency-offset-corrected-inversion (FOCI) pulses provide sharper edge profiles than hyperbolic-secant (HS), which could benefit myocardial ASL.

PURPOSE

To assess the performance of MBF quantification models for DG compared to SG ASL, to evaluate their reproducibility and to compare the effects of HS and FOCI pulses.

STUDY TYPE

Prospective.

SUBJECTS

Sixteen subjects (27 ± 8 years).

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

1.5 T/DG and SG flow-sensitive alternating inversion recovery ASL.

ASSESSMENT

Three models for DG MBF quantification were compared using Monte Carlo simulations and in vivo experiments. Two models used a fitting approach (one using only a single label and control image pair per fit, the other using all available image pairs), while the third model used a T1 correction approach. Slice profile simulations were conducted for HS and FOCI pulses with varying B0 and B1. Temporal signal-to-noise ratio (tSNR) was computed for different acquisition/quantification strategies and inversion pulses. The number of images that minimized MBF error was investigated in the model with highest tSNR. Intra and intersession reproducibility were assessed in 10 subjects.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Within-subject coefficient of variation, analysis of variance. P-value <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

MBF was not different across acquisition/quantification strategies (P = 0.27) nor pulses (P = 0.9). DG MBF quantification models exhibited significantly higher tSNR and superior reproducibility, particularly for the fitting model using multiple images (tSNR was 3.46 ± 2.18 in vivo and 3.32 ± 1.16 in simulations, respectively; wsCV = 16%). Reducing the number of ASL pairs to 13/15 did not increase MBF error (minimum = 0.22 mL/g/min).

DATA CONCLUSION

Reproducibility of MBF was better for DG than SG acquisitions, especially when employing a fitting model.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.

Update on state-of-the-art for arterial spin labeling (ASL) human perfusion imaging outside of the brain

This review article provides an overview of developments for arterial spin labeling (ASL) perfusion imaging in the body (i.e., outside of the brain). It is part of a series of review/recommendation papers from the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM) Perfusion Study Group. In this review, we focus on specific challenges and developments tailored for ASL in a variety of body locations. After presenting common challenges, organ-specific reviews of challenges and developments are presented, including kidneys, lungs, heart (myocardium), placenta, eye (retina), liver, pancreas, and muscle, which are regions that have seen the most developments outside of the brain. Summaries and recommendations of acquisition parameters (when appropriate) are provided for each organ. We then explore the possibilities for wider adoption of body ASL based on large standardization efforts, as well as the potential opportunities based on recent advances in high/low-field systems and machine-learning. This review seeks to provide an overview of the current state-of-the-art of ASL for applications in the body, highlighting ongoing challenges and solutions that aim to enable more widespread use of the technique in clinical practice.

Non-contrast myocardial perfusion in rest and exercise stress using systolic flow-sensitive alternating inversion recovery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate systolic flow-sensitive alternating inversion recovery (FAIR) during rest and exercise stress using 2RR (two cardiac cycles) or 1RR intervals between inversion pulse and imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1RR and 2RR FAIR was implemented on a 3T scanner. Ten healthy subjects were scanned during rest and stress. Stress was performed using an in-bore ergometer. Heart rate, mean myocardial blood flow (MBF) and temporal signal-to-noise ratio (TSNR) were compared using paired t tests.

RESULTS

Mean heart rate during stress was higher than rest for 1RR FAIR (85.8 ± 13.7 bpm vs 63.3 ± 11.1 bpm; p < 0.01) and 2RR FAIR (83.8 ± 14.2 bpm vs 63.1 ± 10.6 bpm; p < 0.01). Mean stress MBF was higher than rest for 1RR FAIR (2.97 ± 0.76 ml/g/min vs 1.43 ± 0.6 ml/g/min; p < 0.01) and 2RR FAIR (2.8 ± 0.96 ml/g/min vs 1.22 ± 0.59 ml/g/min; p < 0.01). Resting mean MBF was higher for 1RR FAIR than 2RR FAIR (p < 0.05), but not during stress. TSNR was lower for stress compared to rest for 1RR FAIR (4.52 ± 2.54 vs 10.12 ± 3.69; p < 0.01) and 2RR FAIR (7.36 ± 3.78 vs 12.41 ± 5.12; p < 0.01). 2RR FAIR TSNR was higher than 1RR FAIR for rest (p < 0.05) and stress (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

We have demonstrated feasibility of systolic FAIR in rest and exercise stress. 2RR delay systolic FAIR enables non-contrast perfusion assessment during stress with relatively high TSNR.