Quantitative myocardial perfusion analysis with a dual-bolus contrast-enhanced first-pass MRI technique in humans
Quantitative myocardial perfusion analysis with a dual-bolus contrast-enhanced first-pass MRI technique in humans
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/jmri.20502
复制
发表时间：
2006-03-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Arai, AE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hsu, LY;Rhoads, KL;Arai, AE
目的：比较完全定量和半定量分析休息和应力心肌血流量（MBF）和心肌灌注储备（MPR）使用双团首过灌注MRI方法在humans.Materials和方法：休息和潘生丁负荷灌注成像10名健康人管理钆对比剂使用双团协议。心室和心肌时间-信号强度曲线由一系列T1加权图像生成，并根据表面线圈强度变化进行调整。然后使用完全定量模型约束去卷积（MCD）拟合校正的信号强度曲线，以定量MBF（mL/min/g）和MPR。结果：用MCD估计的MBF（mL/min/g）在静息时平均为1.02 ± 0.22，在应激时平均为3.39 ± 0.59，测量结果无重叠。使用MCD、SLP和CER时，MPR分别为3.43 +/- 0.71、1.91 +/- 0.65和1.16 +/- 0.19。两个半定量参数（SLP和CER）显着低估MPR（P < 0.001），并未能完全区分休息和应力perfusion.Conclusion：休息和应力MBF（mL/min/g）和MPR估计的双团注灌注MRI适合在公布的范围内。半定量方法（SLP和CER）明显低估了MPR。
Purpose: To compare fully quantitative and semiquantitative analysis of rest and stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) using a dual-bolus first-pass perfusion MRI method in humans.Materials and Methods: Rest and dipyridamole stress perfusion imaging was performed on 10 healthy humans by administering gadolinium contrast using a dual-bolus protocol. Ventricular and myocardial time-signal intensity curves were generated from a series of T1-weighted images and adjusted for surface-coil intensity variations. Corrected signal intensity curves were then fitted using fully quantitative model constrained deconvolution (MCD) to quantify MBF (mL/min/g) and MPR. The results were compared with semiquantitative contrast enhancement ratio (CER) and upslope index (SLP) measurements.Results: MBF (mL/min/g) estimated With MCD averaged 1.02 +/- 0.22 at rest and 3.39 +/- 0.59 for stress with no overlap in measures. MPR was 3.43 +/- 0.71, 1.91 +/- 0.65, and 1.16 +/- 0.19 using MCD, SLP, and CER. Both semiquantitative parameters (SLP and CER) significantly underestimated MPR (P < 0.001) and failed to completely discriminate rest and stress perfusion.Conclusion: Rest and stress MBF (mL/min/g) and MPR estimated by dual-bolus perfusion MRI fit within published ranges. Semiquantitative methods (SLP and CER) significantly underestimated MPR.