Myocardial perfusion quantification using simultaneously acquired 13NH3‐ammonia PET and dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI in patients at rest and stress.
Saved in:
| Title: | Myocardial perfusion quantification using simultaneously acquired 13NH |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Kunze, Karl P.1 karl-p.kunze@tum.de, Nekolla, Stephan G.1,2, Rischpler, Christoph1,2, Zhang, Shelley HuaLei3, Hayes, Carmel4, Langwieser, Nicolas2,5, Ibrahim, Tareq2,5, Laugwitz, Karl‐Ludwig2,5, Schwaiger, Markus1,2 |
| Source: | Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Dec2018, Vol. 80 Issue 6, p2641-2654. 14p. |
| Abstract: | Purpose: Systematic differences with respect to myocardial perfusion quantification exist between DCE‐MRI and PET. Using the potential of integrated PET/MRI, this study was conceived to compare perfusion quantification on the basis of simultaneously acquired 13NH3‐ammonia PET and DCE‐MRI data in patients at rest and stress. Methods: Twenty‐nine patients were examined on a 3T PET/MRI scanner. DCE‐MRI was implemented in dual‐sequence design and additional T1 mapping for signal normalization. Four different deconvolution methods including a modified version of the Fermi technique were compared against 13NH3‐ammonia results. Results: Cohort‐average flow comparison yielded higher resting flows for DCE‐MRI than for PET and, therefore, significantly lower DCE‐MRI perfusion ratios under the common assumption of equal arterial and tissue hematocrit. Absolute flow values were strongly correlated in both slice‐average (R2 = 0.82) and regional (R2 = 0.7) evaluations. Different DCE‐MRI deconvolution methods yielded similar flow result with exception of an unconstrained Fermi method exhibiting outliers at high flows when compared with PET. Conclusion: Thresholds for Ischemia classification may not be directly tradable between PET and MRI flow values. Differences in perfusion ratios between PET and DCE‐MRI may be lifted by using stress/rest‐specific hematocrit conversion. Proper physiological constraints are advised in model‐constrained deconvolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Purpose: Systematic differences with respect to myocardial perfusion quantification exist between DCE‐MRI and PET. Using the potential of integrated PET/MRI, this study was conceived to compare perfusion quantification on the basis of simultaneously acquired 13NH3‐ammonia PET and DCE‐MRI data in patients at rest and stress. Methods: Twenty‐nine patients were examined on a 3T PET/MRI scanner. DCE‐MRI was implemented in dual‐sequence design and additional T1 mapping for signal normalization. Four different deconvolution methods including a modified version of the Fermi technique were compared against 13NH3‐ammonia results. Results: Cohort‐average flow comparison yielded higher resting flows for DCE‐MRI than for PET and, therefore, significantly lower DCE‐MRI perfusion ratios under the common assumption of equal arterial and tissue hematocrit. Absolute flow values were strongly correlated in both slice‐average (R2 = 0.82) and regional (R2 = 0.7) evaluations. Different DCE‐MRI deconvolution methods yielded similar flow result with exception of an unconstrained Fermi method exhibiting outliers at high flows when compared with PET. Conclusion: Thresholds for Ischemia classification may not be directly tradable between PET and MRI flow values. Differences in perfusion ratios between PET and DCE‐MRI may be lifted by using stress/rest‐specific hematocrit conversion. Proper physiological constraints are advised in model‐constrained deconvolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 07403194 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/mrm.27213 |
