Open AccessComparison of phase-resolved functional lung (PREFUL) MRI derived perfusion and ventilation parameters at 1.5T and 3T in healthy volunteers
Author(s) -
Julian Glandorf,
Filip Klimeš,
Andreas Voskrebenzev,
Marcel Gutberlet,
Lea Behrendt,
Cristian Crisosto,
Frank Wacker,
Pierluigi Ciet,
Jim Wild,
Jens VogelClaussen
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0244638
Subject(s) - perfusion , medicine , ventilation (architecture) , lung , cardiology , nuclear medicine , biomedical engineering , physics , thermodynamics
Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of different field strengths on perfusion and ventilation parameters, SNR and CNR derived by PREFUL MRI using predefined sequence parameters. Methods Data sets of free breathing 2d FLASH lung MRI were acquired from 15 healthy subjects at 1.5T and 3T (Magnetom Avanto and Skyra, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) with a maximum period of 3 days in between. The processed functional parameters regional ventilation (RVent), perfusion (Q), quantified perfusion (Q Quant ), perfusion defect percentage (QDP), ventilation defect percentage (VDP) and ventilation-perfusion match (VQM) were compared for systematic differences. Signal- and contrast-to-noise ratio (SNR and CNR) of both acquisitions were analyzed. Results RVent, Q, VDP, SNR and CNR presented no significant differences between 1.5T and 3T. Q Quant (1.5T vs. 3T, P = 0.04), and QDP (1.5T vs. 3T, P ≤0.01) decreased significantly at 3T. Consequently, VQM increased significantly (1.5T vs. 3T, P ≤0.01). Skewness and kurtosis of the Q-values increased significantly at 3T ( P ≤0.01). The mean Sørensen-Dice coefficients between both series were 0.91 for QDP and 0.94 for VDP. The Bland-Altman analysis of both series showed mean differences of 4.29% for QDP, 1.23% for VDP and -5.15% for VQM. Using the above-mentioned parameters for three-day repeatability at two different scanners and field strengths, the retrospective power calculation showed, that a sample size of 15 can detect differences of 3.7% for QDP, of 2.9% for VDP and differences of 2.6% for VQM. Conclusion Significant differences in QDP may be related to field inhomogeneities, which is expressed by increasing skewness and kurtosis at 3T. Q Quant reveals only poor reproducibility between 1.5T and 3T. RVent, Q, VDP, SNR and CNR were not altered significantly at the used sequence parameters. Healthy participants with minimal defects present high spatial agreement of QDP and VDP.