MR assessment of cerebral vascular response: A comparison of two methods

✍ Scribed by Aart Spilt; Rivka Van den Boom; Adriaan M. Kamper; Gerard J. Blauw; Edward L.E.M. Bollen; Mark A. van Buchem

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2002
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 719 KB
• Volume: 16
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 1053-1807
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.10188

✦ Synopsis

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the results and reproducibility of two MR‐based methods of measuring the cerebrovascular response (CVR).

Materials and Methods

In eight volunteers, CVR was assessed with two MR‐based methods upon a challenge with acetazolamide. CVR was assessed by measuring changes in total cerebral blood flow (TCBF) using phase contrast (PC) MRI, and by measuring perfusion MRI. To assess reproducibility the measurements were repeated after 1 week.

Results

The average CVR with the PC‐MRI method was 46% (SD = 16%), and for perfusion MR the measured CVR was 44% (SD = 16%). The coefficient of variation (COV) for PC‐MRI was 28%, while perfusion MR had a COV of 26%. The limits of agreement between the two methods were −49% and 45%, demonstrating a lack of agreement between the two methods in terms of CVR estimation.

Conclusion

CVR estimates based on PC‐MRI and perfusion MRI showed reproducibility but a lack of agreement in healthy volunteers. This lack of agreement can be attributed to the different aspects of the CVR reflected by these methods: TCBF reflects changes in CBF, whereas our perfusion MRI method reflects cerebral blood volume (CBV). J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2002;16:610–616. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.