title: Quantitative pixel-wise measurement of myocardial blood flow: the impact of surface coil-related field inhomogeneity and a comparison of methods for its correction.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Surface coil-related field inhomogeneity potentially confounds pixel-wise quantitative analysis of perfusion CMR images. This study assessed the effect of surface coil-related field inhomogeneity on the spatial variation of pixel-wise myocardial blood flow (MBF), and assessed its impact on the ability of MBF quantification to differentiate ischaemic from remote coronary territories. Two surface coil intensity correction (SCIC) techniques were evaluated: 1) a proton density-based technique (PD-SCIC) and; 2) a saturation recovery steady-state free precession-based technique (SSFP-SCIC).
  
  
  METHODS
  26 subjects (18 with significant CAD and 8 healthy volunteers) underwent stress perfusion CMR using a motion-corrected, saturation recovery SSFP dual-sequence protocol. A proton density (PD)-weighted image was acquired at the beginning of the sequence. Surface coil-related field inhomogeneity was approximated using a third-order surface fit to the PD image or a pre-contrast saturation prepared SSFP image. The estimated intensity bias field was subsequently applied to the image series. Pixel-wise MBF was measured from mid-ventricular stress images using the two SCIC approaches and compared to measurements made without SCIC.
  
  
  RESULTS
  MBF heterogeneity in healthy volunteers was higher using SSFP-SCIC (24.8 ± 4.1%) compared to PD-SCIC (20.8 ± 3.0%; p = 0.009), however heterogeneity was significantly lower using either SCIC technique compared to analysis performed without SCIC (36.2 ± 6.3%). In CAD patients, the difference in MBF between remote and ischaemic territories was minimal when analysis was performed without SCIC (0.06 ± 0.91 mL/min/kg), and was substantially lower than with either PD-SCIC (0.50 ± 0.63 mL/min/kg; p = 0.013) or with SSFP-SCIC (0.63 ± 0.89 mL/min/kg; p = 0.005). In 6 patients, MBF quantified without SCIC was artifactually higher in the stenosed coronary territory compared to the remote territory. PD-SCIC and SSFP-SCIC had similar differences in MBF between remote and ischaemic territories (p = 0.145).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study demonstrates that surface coil-related field inhomogeneity can confound pixel-wise MBF quantification. Whilst a PD-based SCIC led to a more homogenous correction than a saturation recovery SSFP-based technique, this did not result in an appreciable difference in the differentiation of ischaemic from remote coronary territories and thus either method could be applied.
authors.forename: Christopher A
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Miller
authors.forename: Li-Yueh
authors.initials: LY
authors.lastname: Hsu
authors.forename: Allison
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Ta
authors.forename: Hannah
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Conn
authors.forename: Susanne
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Winkler
authors.forename: Andrew E
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Arai
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D016477:Artifacts; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D003324:Coronary Artery Disease / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D003326:Coronary Circulation; D003331:Coronary Vessels / Q000503:physiopathology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007090:Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D055414:Myocardial Perfusion Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D015203:Reproducibility of Results
references.citation: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Apr;27(4):818-24
references.pmid: 18383259
references.citation: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006 Mar;23(3):315-22
references.pmid: 16463299
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: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Aug 10;56(7):561-9
references.pmid: 20688211
references.citation: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2010;12:57
references.pmid: 20932314
references.citation: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Feb;5(2):154-66
references.pmid: 22340821
references.citation: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Oct 16;60(16):1546-55
references.pmid: 22999722
references.citation: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Jan;7(1):14-22
references.pmid: 24433707
references.citation: Circulation. 2002 Jan 29;105(4):539-42
references.pmid: 11815441
references.citation: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Jun;19(6):758-70
references.pmid: 15170782
references.citation: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Jul;20(1):39-45
references.pmid: 15221807
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987 Feb;148(2):418-20
references.pmid: 3492123
references.citation: Magn Reson Med. 1990 Nov;16(2):192-225
references.pmid: 2266841
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: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Sep;2(9):1103-10
references.pmid: 19761990