Comparison of non-invasive MRI measurements of cerebral blood flow in a large multisite cohort. Issue 7 (July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dolui, Sudipto; Wang, Ze; Wang, Danny JJ; Mattay, Raghav; Finkel, Mack; Elliott, Mark; Desiderio, Lisa; Inglis, Ben; Mueller, Bryon; Stafford, Randall B; Launer, Lenore J; Jacobs, David R; Bryan, R Nick; Detre, John A
• Is Part Of: Journal of cerebral blood flow & metabolism. Volume 36:Issue 7(2016)
• Page Start: 1244
• Page End: 1256
• Publication Date: 2016-07
• Subjects: Cerebral blood flow -- labeling efficiency -- phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging -- pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling -- semi-automated vessel segmentation; Cerebral circulation -- Periodicals; Brain -- Metabolism -- Periodicals; Brain -- Blood-vessels -- Periodicals; Cerebrovascular disease -- Periodicals; 612.824
• DOI: 10.1177/0271678X16646124
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0271-678X

Abstract

Arterial spin labeling and phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging provide independent non-invasive methods for measuring cerebral blood flow. We compared global cerebral blood flow measurements obtained using pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling and phase contrast in 436 middle-aged subjects acquired at two sites in the NHLBI CARDIA multisite study. Cerebral blood flow measured by phase contrast (CBFPC : 55.76 ± 12.05 ml/100 g/min) was systematically higher ( p < 0.001) and more variable than cerebral blood flow measured by pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling (CBFPCASL : 47.70 ± 9.75). The correlation between global cerebral blood flow values obtained from the two modalities was 0.59 ( p < 0.001), explaining less than half of the observed variance in cerebral blood flow estimates. Well-established correlations of global cerebral blood flow with age and sex were similarly observed in both CBFPCASL and CBFPC . CBFPC also demonstrated statistically significant site differences, whereas no such differences were observed in CBFPCASL . No consistent velocity-dependent effects on pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling were observed, suggesting that pseudo-continuous labeling efficiency does not vary substantially across typical adult carotid and vertebral velocities, as has previously been suggested. Conclusions: Although CBFPCASL and CBFPC values show substantial similarity across the entire cohort, these data do not support calibration of CBFPCASL using CBFPC in individual subjects. The wide-ranging cerebral blood flow values obtained by both methods suggest that cerebral blood flow values are highly variable in the general population.