FLASH proton density imaging for improved surface coil intensity correction in quantitative and semi-quantitative SSFP perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance

BackgroundA low excitation flip angle (α < 10°) steady-state free precession (SSFP) proton-density (PD) reference scan is often used to estimate the B1-field inhomogeneity for surface coil intensity correction (SCIC) of the saturation-recovery (SR) prepared high flip angle (α = 40-50°) SSFP myocardial perfusion images. The different SSFP off-resonance response for these two flip angles might lead to suboptimal SCIC when there is a spatial variation in the background B0-field. The low flip angle SSFP-PD frames are more prone to parallel imaging banding artifacts in the presence of off-resonance. The use of FLASH-PD frames would eliminate both the banding artifacts and the uneven frequency response in the presence of off-resonance in the surface coil inhomogeneity estimate and improve homogeneity of semi-quantitative and quantitative perfusion measurements.MethodsB0-field maps, SSFP and FLASH-PD frames were acquired in 10 healthy volunteers to analyze the SSFP off-resonance response. Furthermore, perfusion scans preceded by both FLASH and SSFP-PD frames from 10 patients with no myocardial infarction were analyzed semi-quantitatively and quantitatively (rest n = 10 and stress n = 1). Intra-subject myocardial blood flow (MBF) coefficient of variation (CoV) over the whole left ventricle (LV), as well as intra-subject peak contrast (CE) and upslope (SLP) standard deviation (SD) over 6 LV sectors were investigated.ResultsIn the 6 out of 10 cases where artifacts were apparent in the LV ROI of the SSFP-PD images, all three variability metrics were statistically significantly lower when using the FLASH-PD frames as input for the SCIC (CoVMBF-FLASH = 0.3 ± 0.1, CoVMBF-SSFP = 0.4 ± 0.1, p = 0.03; SDCE-FLASH = 10 ± 2, SDCE-SSFP = 32 ± 7, p = 0.01; SDSLP-FLASH = 0.02 ± 0.01, SDSLP-SSFP = 0.06 ± 0.02, p = 0.03). Example rest and stress data sets from the patient pool demonstrate that the low flip angle SSFP protocol can exhibit severe ghosting artifacts originating from off-resonance banding artifacts at the edges of the field of view that parallel imaging is not able to unfold. These artifacts lead to errors in the quantitative perfusion maps and the semi-quantitative perfusion indexes, such as false positives. It is shown that this can be avoided by using FLASH-PD frames as input for the SCIC.ConclusionsFLASH-PD images are recommended as input for SCIC of SSFP perfusion images instead of low flip angle SSFP-PD images.

[1]  N. Wilke,et al.  Analysis of myocardial perfusion MRI , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[2]  A. Aschoff,et al.  Multislice MR first‐pass myocardial perfusion imaging: Impact of the receiver coil array , 2005, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[3]  P. Kellman,et al.  A quantitative pixel-wise measurement of myocardial blood flow by contrast-enhanced first-pass CMR perfusion imaging: microsphere validation in dogs and feasibility study in humans. , 2012, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[4]  Anthony H. Aletras,et al.  Surface Coil Intensity Correction and Non-linear Intensity Normalization Improve Pixel-Resolution Parametric Maps of Myocardial MRI Perfusion , 2003, MICCAI.

[5]  R. Heethaar,et al.  Improved correction of spatial inhomogeneities of surface coils in quantitative analysis of first‐pass myocardial perfusion imaging , 2010, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[6]  S. Maderwald,et al.  Steady-state free precession sequences in myocardial first-pass perfusion MR imaging: comparison with TurboFLASH imaging , 2004, European Radiology.

[7]  Peter Kellman,et al.  Dynamic autocalibrated parallel imaging using temporal GRAPPA (TGRAPPA) , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[8]  Scott B Reeder,et al.  Cardiac MRI of ischemic heart disease at 3 T: potential and challenges. , 2008, European journal of radiology.

[9]  P. Kellman,et al.  Quantitative myocardial perfusion analysis with a dual‐bolus contrast‐enhanced first‐pass MRI technique in humans , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[10]  Leon Axel,et al.  Theory-based signal calibration with single-point T1 measurements for first-pass quantitative perfusion MRI studies. , 2006, Academic radiology.

[11]  Peter Kellman,et al.  Influence of Off-resonance in myocardial T1-mapping using SSFP based MOLLI method , 2013, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[12]  J W Murakami,et al.  Intensity correction of phased‐array surface coil images , 1996, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[13]  Zhi-Pei Liang,et al.  Multiecho dixon fat and water separation method for detecting fibrofatty infiltration in the myocardium , 2009, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[14]  P. Kellman,et al.  Imaging sequences for first pass perfusion --a review. , 2007, Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[15]  P. Kellman,et al.  Direct comparison of myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance sequences with parallel acquisition , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[16]  Christine H. Lorenz,et al.  Unsupervised Inline Analysis of Cardiac Perfusion MRI , 2009, MICCAI.

[17]  Yi Wang,et al.  Myocardial first pass perfusion: Steady‐state free precession versus spoiled gradient echo and segmented echo planar imaging , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[18]  Robin M Heidemann,et al.  Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA) , 2002, Magnetic resonance in medicine.