2005
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.20457
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantification of resting myocardial blood flow in a pig model of acute ischemia based on first‐pass MRI

Abstract: Qualitative and semiquantitative contrast-enhanced (CE) dynamic perfusion MRI techniques are established as noninvasive diagnostic means of assessing coronary artery disease. However, to date quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) has not reached the same acceptance as MBF quantification with nuclear techniques. To validate quantification of MBF at rest using the extracellular contrast agent (CA) Gd-DTPA, we performed an animal study in a pig model of acute myocardial ischemia. We quantified MBF from MR… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
29
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Both J-W and MMID4 model can determine MBF independent of E but the J-W model is mathematically less complicated and is characterized by 5 [9] instead of over 20 parameters [33]. To avoid unreliable estimation of MBF because of overfitting with the MMID4 model [34], most of the model parameters except for MBF, E and a few others have to fixed [35][36][37]. In practice, J-W and MMID4 model are equivalent as evidenced by the similar linear correlation relationship of MBF measured with DCE-CT versus microspheres in this study and that of ref 4 (slope 0.96 vs. 0.88 and intercept 0.30 vs. 0.75).…”
Section: Comparison With Other Ct Perfusion Methodologiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both J-W and MMID4 model can determine MBF independent of E but the J-W model is mathematically less complicated and is characterized by 5 [9] instead of over 20 parameters [33]. To avoid unreliable estimation of MBF because of overfitting with the MMID4 model [34], most of the model parameters except for MBF, E and a few others have to fixed [35][36][37]. In practice, J-W and MMID4 model are equivalent as evidenced by the similar linear correlation relationship of MBF measured with DCE-CT versus microspheres in this study and that of ref 4 (slope 0.96 vs. 0.88 and intercept 0.30 vs. 0.75).…”
Section: Comparison With Other Ct Perfusion Methodologiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our present study, setting coronary flow was differentiated in angiographically TIMI II slow and fast flow, thus allowing the evaluation of the hemodynamic status of the stenosis in relation to regional myocardial function [9]. Clearly, SPECT analysis documented myocardial hypoperfusion, but noninvasive blood flow quantification might be more reliably accomplished by using MRI in future experiments [27]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As such, MMID4 is a more realistic model than J&W to describe the kinetic behavior of contrast solute in the myocardium. Most of the parameters modeled by MMID4 need to be fixed, however, except F and E and a few others 27,28 to avoid unreliable estimation of MP owing to overfitting the measured data. 29 For instance, x-ray contrast agents are hydrophilic and inert, hence contrast distribution in parenchyma and metabolization in other spaces can be ignored.…”
Section: Mmid4 Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%