Key result
Systolic FAIR with compressed sensing increases analyzable myocardial pixels by ~31% vs diastolic FAIR.
Why the study?
FAIR arterial spin labeling has intrinsically low sensitivity, and it is uncertain if systolic FAIR improves analyzable myocardium area and physiological noise compared with diastolic FAIR.
Does systolic FAIR with compressed sensing improve the number of analyzable myocardial pixels and TSNR compared to diastolic FAIR in healthy subjects?
Cross-Sectional (n=12)
Does systolic FAIR with compressed sensing improve the number of analyzable myocardial pixels and TSNR compared to diastolic FAIR in healthy subjects?
Absolute Event Rate: 663% vs 507%
p-value: p=0.001
Compressed sensing accelerated systolic FAIR arterial spin labeling increases the number of analyzable myocardial pixels without a TSNR penalty compared to diastolic FAIR.
May improve myocardial ASL feasibility in research; leaves open translation to patients with cardiovascular disease.
Quantitative myocardial perfusion can be achieved without contrast agents using flow‐sensitive alternating inversion recovery (FAIR) arterial spin labeling. However, FAIR has an intrinsically low sensitivity, which may be improved by mitigating the effects of physiological noise or by increasing the area of artifact‐free myocardium. The aim of this study was to investigate if systolic FAIR may increase the amount of analyzable myocardium compared with diastolic FAIR and its effect on physiological noise. Furthermore, we compare parallel imaging acceleration with a factor of 2 with compressed sensing acceleration with a factor of 3 for systolic FAIR. Twelve healthy subjects were scanned during rest on a 3 T scanner using diastolic FAIR with parallel imaging factor 2 (FAIR‐PI2D), systolic FAIR with the same acceleration (FAIR‐PI2S) and systolic FAIR with compressed sensing factor 3 (FAIR‐CS3S). The number of analyzable pixels in the myocardium, temporal signal‐to‐noise ratio (TSNR) and mean myocardial blood flow (MBF) were calculated for all methods. The number of analyzable pixels using FAIR‐CS3S (663 ± 55) and FAIR‐PI2S (671 ± 58) was significantly higher than for FAIR‐PI2D (507 ± 82; P = .001 for both), while there was no significant difference between FAIR‐PI2S and FAIR‐CS3S. The mean TSNR of the midventricular slice for FAIR‐PI2D was 11.4 ± 3.9, similar to that of FAIR‐CS3S, which was 11.0 ± 3.3, both considerably higher than for FAIR‐PI2S, which was 8.4 ± 3.1 (P < .05 for both). Mean MBF was similar for all three methods. The use of compressed sensing accelerated systolic FAIR benefits from an increased number of analyzable myocardial pixels compared with diastolic FAIR without suffering from a TSNR penalty, unlike systolic FAIR with parallel imaging acceleration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Henningsson et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy subjects (n=12). Systolic FAIR with compressed sensing factor 3 (FAIR-CS3S) vs. Diastolic FAIR with parallel imaging factor 2 (FAIR-PI2D) was evaluated on Number of analyzable pixels in the myocardium (p=0.001). Systolic FAIR with compressed sensing factor 3 significantly increased the number of analyzable myocardial pixels compared with diastolic FAIR (663 vs 507, P=0.001) without a TSNR penalty.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: