Comparison of pulsed three-dimensional CEST acquisition schemes at 7 tesla: steady state versus pseudosteady state.

Abstract

PurposeTo compare two pulsed, volumetric chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) acquisition schemes: steady state (SS) and pseudosteady state (PS) for the same brain coverage, spatial/spectral resolution and scan time.MethodsBoth schemes were optimized for maximum sensitivity to amide proton transfer (APT) and nuclear Overhauser enhancement (NOE) effects through Bloch‐McConnell simulations, and compared in terms of sensitivity to APT and NOE effects, and to transmit field inhomogeneity. Five consented healthy volunteers were scanned on a 7 Tesla Philips MR‐system using the optimized protocols at three nominal B1 amplitudes: 1 μT, 2 μT, and 3 μT.ResultsRegion of interest based analysis revealed that PS is more sensitive (P < 0.05) to APT and NOE effects compared with SS at low B1 amplitudes (0.7–1.0 μT). Also, both sequences have similar dependence on the transmit field inhomogeneity. For the optimum CEST presaturation parameters (1 μT and 2 μT for APT and NOE, respectively), NOE is less sensitive to the inhomogeneity effects (15% signal to noise ratio [SNR] change for a B1 dropout of 40%) compared with APT (35% SNR change for a B1 dropout of 40%).ConclusionFor the same brain coverage, spatial/spectral resolution and scan time, at low power levels PS is more sensitive to the slow chemical exchange‐mediated processes compared with SS. Magn Reson Med 77:2280–2287, 2017. © 2016 The Authors Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.