title: FLASH proton density imaging for improved surface coil intensity correction in quantitative and semi-quantitative SSFP perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  A 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.
  
  
  METHODS
  B0-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.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In 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.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  FLASH-PD images are recommended as input for SCIC of SSFP perfusion images instead of low flip angle SSFP-PD images.
authors.forename: Sonia
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Nielles-Vallespin
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Kellman
authors.forename: Li-Yueh
authors.initials: LY
authors.lastname: Hsu
authors.forename: Andrew E
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Arai
mesh_terms: D016477:Artifacts; D003326:Coronary Circulation; D064368:Healthy Volunteers; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D055414:Myocardial Perfusion Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D015203:Reproducibility of Results
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2004 Mar;14(3):409-16
references.pmid: 14648105
references.citation: Magn Reson Med. 2002 Jun;47(6):1202-10
references.pmid: 12111967
references.citation: Magn Reson Med. 1996 Apr;35(4):585-90
references.pmid: 8992210
references.citation: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005 Mar;21(3):310-6
references.pmid: 15723378
references.citation: Magn Reson Med. 2005 Apr;53(4):981-5
references.pmid: 15799044
references.citation: Magn Reson Med. 2005 Nov;54(5):1123-9
references.pmid: 16217785
references.citation: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006 Mar;23(3):315-22
references.pmid: 16463299
references.citation: Acad Radiol. 2006 Jun;13(6):686-93
references.pmid: 16679270
references.citation: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2007;9(3):525-37
references.pmid: 17365232
references.citation: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Dec;26(6):1444-51
references.pmid: 17968886
references.citation: Eur J Radiol. 2008 Jan;65(1):15-28
references.pmid: 18077119
references.citation: Magn Reson Med. 2009 Jan;61(1):215-21
references.pmid: 19097213
references.citation: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Jan;31(1):227-33
references.pmid: 20027593
references.citation: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2009;12(Pt 2):741-9
references.pmid: 20426178
references.citation: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Feb;5(2):154-66
references.pmid: 22340821
references.citation: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15:63
references.pmid: 23875774
references.citation: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Jun;19(6):758-70
references.pmid: 15170782