» Articles » PMID: 31728679

Impact of Baseline Calibration on Semiquantitative Assessment of Myocardial Perfusion Reserve by Adenosine Stress MRI

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty Radiology
Date 2019 Nov 16
PMID 31728679
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In this study, we sought to investigate the impact of baseline calibration, which is used in quantitative cardiac MRI perfusion analysis to correct for surface coil inhomogeneity and noise, on myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI) and its contribution to previously reported paradoxical low MPRI < 1.0 in patients with unobstructed coronary arteries. Semiquantitative perfusion analysis was performed in 20 patients with unobstructed coronary arteries undergoing stress/rest perfusion CMR and in ten patients undergoing paired rest perfusion CMR. The following baseline calibration settings were compared: (1) baseline division, (2) baseline subtraction and (3) no baseline calibration. In uncalibrated analysis, we observed ~ 20% segmental dispersion of signal intensity (SI)-over-time curves. Both baseline subtraction and baseline division reduced relative dispersion of t0-SI (p < 0.001), but only baseline division corrected for dispersion of peak-SI and maximum upslope also (p < 0.001). In the assessment of perfusion indices, however, baseline division resulted in paradoxical low MPRI (1.01 ± 0.23 vs. 1.63 ± 0.38, p < 0.001) and rest perfusion index (RPI 0.54 ± 0.07 vs. 0.94 ± 0.12, p < 0.001), respectively. This was due to a reversed ratio of blood-pool and myocardial baseline-SI before the second perfusion study caused by circulating contrast agent from the first injection. In conclusion, baseline division reliably corrects for inhomogeneity of the surface coil sensitivity profile facilitating comparisons of regional myocardial perfusion during hyperemia or at rest. However, in the assessment of MPRI, baseline division can lead to paradoxical low results (even MPRI < 1.0 in patients with unobstructed coronary arteries) potentially mimicking severely impaired perfusion reserve. Thus, in the assessment of MPRI we propose to waive baseline calibration.

References
1.
Ibrahim T, Nekolla S, Schreiber K, Odaka K, Volz S, Mehilli J . Assessment of coronary flow reserve: comparison between contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39(5):864-70. DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01829-0. View

2.
Larghat A, Maredia N, Biglands J, Greenwood J, Ball S, Jerosch-Herold M . Reproducibility of first-pass cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 37(4):865-74. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.23889. View

3.
Murakami J, Hayes C, Weinberger E . Intensity correction of phased-array surface coil images. Magn Reson Med. 1996; 35(4):585-90. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.1910350419. View

4.
Lockie T, Ishida M, Perera D, Chiribiri A, De Silva K, Kozerke S . High-resolution magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging at 3.0-Tesla to detect hemodynamically significant coronary stenoses as determined by fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 57(1):70-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.09.019. View

5.
Costa M, Shoemaker S, Futamatsu H, Klassen C, Angiolillo D, Nguyen M . Quantitative magnetic resonance perfusion imaging detects anatomic and physiologic coronary artery disease as measured by coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50(6):514-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.04.053. View