Abstract

Background Quantitative myocardial perfusion MRI depends on accurate determination of the arterial input function (AIF). Unfortunately, typical doses of contrast agent (CA) cause saturation in the AIF signal intensity at peak CA concentrations. Methods using dual boluses [1] or dual sequences [2] have been proposed to correct for this effect; however, they require additional data acquisition which complicates the imaging procedure. CA concentrations can be directly found by calculating blood and myocardial T1 values [3,4]. This method was performed in vivo and compared to the dual sequence method [2]. Methods Radial AIF correction was performed using the method described in [4]. T1 relaxation following an SR magnetization preparation and FLASH acquisition can be modeled [3]. By acquiring multiple images after a single SR and using the acquisition parameters, pixelwise T1 can be found by solving a simple non-linear data fitting exercise. Gd concentration is found using the known relaxivity of Gd CA [6]. Ten healthy volunteers underwent perfusion MRI studies on a Siemens 3T Verio system with IRB approval and written consent. Two first pass perfusion scans were

Highlights

  • Quantitative myocardial perfusion MRI depends on accurate determination of the arterial input function (AIF)

  • Gd concentration is found using the known relaxivity of Gd contrast agent (CA) [6]

  • Results: Raw Cartesian and radial perfusion signal intensity curves showed higher than expected rest MBF

Read more

Summary

Background

Quantitative myocardial perfusion MRI depends on accurate determination of the arterial input function (AIF). Typical doses of contrast agent (CA) cause saturation in the AIF signal intensity at peak CA concentrations. Methods using dual boluses [1] or dual sequences [2] have been proposed to correct for this effect; they require additional data acquisition which complicates the imaging procedure. CA concentrations can be directly found by calculating blood and myocardial T1 values [3,4]. This method was performed in vivo and compared to the dual sequence method [2]

Methods
Results
Conclusions
Arai Christian
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call