Premium
Multi‐organ comparison of flow‐based arterial spin labeling techniques: Spatially non‐selective labeling for cerebral and renal perfusion imaging
Author(s) -
Franklin Suzanne L.,
Bones Isabell K.,
Harteveld Anita A.,
Hirschler Lydiane,
Stralen Marijn,
Qin Qin,
Boer Anneloes,
Hoogduin Johannes M.,
Bos Clemens,
Osch Matthias J. P.,
Schmid Sophie
Publication year - 2021
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.28603
Subject(s) - arterial spin labeling , cerebral blood flow , perfusion , perfusion scanning , cerebral perfusion pressure , computer science , breathing , nuclear magnetic resonance , biomedical engineering , medicine , physics , cardiology , anesthesia
Purpose Flow‐based arterial spin labeling (ASL) techniques provide a transit‐time insensitive alternative to the more conventional spatially selective ASL techniques. However, it is not clear which flow‐based ASL technique performs best and also, how these techniques perform outside the brain (taking into account eg, flow‐dynamics, field‐inhomogeneity, and organ motion). In the current study we aimed to compare 4 flow‐based ASL techniques (ie, velocity selective ASL, acceleration selective ASL, multiple velocity selective saturation ASL, and velocity selective inversion prepared ASL [VSI‐ASL]) to the current spatially selective reference techniques in brain (ie, pseudo‐continuous ASL [pCASL]) and kidney (ie, pCASL and flow alternating inversion recovery [FAIR]). Methods Brain ( n = 5) and kidney ( n = 6) scans were performed in healthy subjects at 3T. Perfusion‐weighted signal (PWS) maps were generated and ASL techniques were compared based on temporal SNR (tSNR), sensitivity to perfusion changes using a visual stimulus (brain) and robustness to respiratory motion by comparing scans acquired in paced‐breathing and free‐breathing (kidney). Results In brain, all flow‐based ASL techniques showed similar tSNR as pCASL, but only VSI‐ASL showed similar sensitivity to perfusion changes. In kidney, all flow‐based ASL techniques had comparable tSNR, although all lower than FAIR. In addition, VSI‐ASL showed a sensitivity to B 1 ‐inhomogeneity. All ASL techniques were relatively robust to respiratory motion. Conclusion In both brain and kidney, flow‐based ASL techniques provide a planning‐free and transit‐time insensitive alternative to spatially selective ASL techniques. VSI‐ASL shows the most potential overall, showing similar performance as the golden standard pCASL in brain. However, in kidney, a reduction of B 1 ‐sensitivity of VSI‐ASL is necessary to match the performance of FAIR.