Cerebral OEF quantification: A comparison study between quantitative susceptibility mapping and dual‐gas calibrated BOLD imaging. Issue 1 (2nd August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ma, Yuhan; Sun, Hongfu; Cho, Junghun; Mazerolle, Erin L.; Wang, Yi; Pike, G. Bruce
• Is Part Of: Magnetic resonance in medicine. Volume 83:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 68
• Page End: 82
• Publication Date: 2019-08-02
• Subjects: calibrated BOLD -- oxygen extraction fraction -- quantitative susceptibility mapping; Nuclear magnetic resonance -- Periodicals; Electron paramagnetic resonance -- Periodicals; 616.07548
• DOI: 10.1002/mrm.27907
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0740-3194

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: To compare regional oxygen extraction fraction (OEF) and cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen consumption (CMRO2 ) quantified from the microvascular quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) using a hypercapnic gas challenge with those measured by the dual‐gas calibrated BOLD imaging (DGC‐BOLD) in healthy subjects. Methods: Ten healthy subjects were scanned using a 3T MR system. The QSM data were acquired with a multi‐echo gradient‐echo sequence at baseline and hypercapnia. Cerebral blood flow data were acquired using the pseudo‐continuous arterial spin labeling technique. Baseline OEF and CMRO2 were calculated using QSM and cerebral blood flow measurements. The DGC‐BOLD data were also collected under a hypercapnic and a hyperoxic condition to yield baseline OEF and CMRO2 . The QSM‐OEF and CMRO2 maps were compared with DGC‐BOLD OEF and CMRO2 maps using region of interest (vascular territories) analysis and Bland‐Altman plots. Results: Hypercapnia is a robust stimulus for mapping OEF in combination with QSM. Average OEF in 16 vascular territory regions of interest across 10 subjects was 0.40 ± 0.04 by QSM‐OEF and 0.38 ± 0.09 by DGC‐BOLD. The average CMRO2 was 176 ± 35 and 167 ± 53 μmol O2 /min/100g by QSM‐OEF and DGC‐BOLD, respectively. A Bland‐Altman plot of regional OEF and CMRO2 in regions of interest revealed a statistically significant but small difference (OEF difference = 0.02, CMRO2 difference = 9 μmol O2 /min/100g, p < .05) between the 2 methods for the 10 healthy subjects. Conclusion: Hypercapnic challenge–assisted QSM‐OEF is a feasible approach to quantify regional brain OEF and CMRO2 . Compared with DGC‐BOLD, hypercapnia QSM‐OEF results in smaller intersubject variability and requires only 1 gas challenge.