z-logo
Premium
Double‐gated myocardial ASL perfusion imaging is robust to heart rate variation
Author(s) -
Do Hung Phi,
Yoon Andrew J.,
Fong Michael W.,
Saremi Farhood,
Barr Mark L.,
Nayak Krishna S.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
magnetic resonance in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.696
H-Index - 225
eISSN - 1522-2594
pISSN - 0740-3194
DOI - 10.1002/mrm.26282
Subject(s) - gating , myocardial perfusion imaging , heart rate variability , perfusion , cardiology , medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , nuclear medicine , blood flow , cardiac pet , arterial spin labeling , heart rate , nuclear magnetic resonance , physics , radiology , blood pressure , physiology
Purpose Cardiac motion is a dominant source of physiological noise (PN) in myocardial arterial spin labeled (ASL) perfusion imaging. This study investigates the sensitivity to heart rate variation (HRV) of double‐gated myocardial ASL compared with the more widely used single‐gated method. Methods Double‐gating and single‐gating were performed on 10 healthy volunteers (n = 10, 3F/7M; age, 23–34 years) and eight heart transplant recipients (n = 8, 1F/7M; age, 26–76 years) at rest in the randomized order. Myocardial blood flow (MBF), PN, temporal signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), and HRV were measured. Results HRV ranged from 0.2 to 7.8 bpm. Double‐gating PN did not depend on HRV, while single‐gating PN increased with HRV. Over all subjects, double‐gating provided a significant reduction in global PN (from 0.20 ± 0.15 to 0.11 ± 0.03 mL/g/min; P  = 0.01) and per‐segment PN (from 0.33 ± 0.23 to 0.21 ± 0.12 mL/g/min; P  < 0.001), with significant increases in global temporal SNR (from 11 ± 8 to 18 ± 8; P  = 0.02) and per‐segment temporal SNR (from 7 ± 4 to 11 ± 12; P  < 0.001) without significant difference in measured MBF. Conclusion Single‐gated myocardial ASL suffers from reduced temporal SNR, while double‐gated myocardial ASL provides consistent temporal SNR independent of HRV. Magn Reson Med 77:1975–1980, 2017. © 2016 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here