- Poster presentation
- Open Access
A comparison of dual-bolus and dual-sequence quantitative myocardial perfusion techniques
© Biglands et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2015
- Published: 3 February 2015
- Myocardial Blood Flow
- Suspected Coronary Artery Disease
- Saturation Pulse
- Contrast Agent Concentration
- British Heart Foundation
Single bolus quantitative myocardial perfusion is sensitive to systematic errors due to the non-linear relationship between contrast agent concentration and MR signal. These errors can be minimised by using a low dose contrast bolus or by altering the imaging sequence parameters. However, these approaches substantially reduce the contrast to noise ratio of the images increasing the noise in the myocardial blood flow (MBF) values. This study compared two techniques proposed to address these issues; the dual-bolus technique and dual-sequence imaging.
Mean and standard deviation MBF values at stress and rest and MPR values (stress MBF/rest MBF) from the dual-bolus and dual-sequence analysis methods.
Stress MBF (ml/g/min)
Rest MBF (ml/g/min)
1.45 +/- 0.45
0.48 +/- 0.20
3.38 +/- 1.50
2.37 +/- 1.14
1.19 +/- 0.49
2.01 +/- 0.48
Both methods generated MBF estimates that are within literature ranges. However, the values between the two methods differed significantly. The AUC of the main bolus was lower than that of the dose corrected pre-bolus. This would be consistent with a reduced dose ratio, perhaps due to dilution of the main bolus in the line, or inaccuracies in the concentration conversion procedure, due to the limitations of the imaging sequence (e.g. an imperfect saturation and/or readout pulses). These results call into question the accuracy of these techniques and highlight the need for future studies to isolate the causes of these discrepancies.
During this work S Plein was funded by a British Heart Foundation fellowship (FS/10/62/28409). S Plein received an educational research grant from Philips Healthcare. David Broadbent was funded by an NIHR fellowship NIHR-DRF-2012-005-155.
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.