Evidence Hub

Ungated, plug-and-play preclinical cardiac CEST-MRI using radial FLASH with segmented saturation

Jonah Weigand-Whittier, Michael Wendland, Bonnie Lam, Mark Velasquez, Moriel H. Vandsburger

arXiv, 2024

Abstract

Purpose: ECG and respiratory-gated preclinical cardiac CEST-MRI acquisitions are difficult due to variable saturation recovery with T1, RF interference in the ECG signal, and offset-to-offset variation in Z-magnetization and cardiac phase introduced by changes in cardiac frequency and trigger delays. Methods: The proposed method consists of segmented saturation modules with radial FLASH readouts and golden angle progression. The segmented saturation blocks drive the system to steady-state, and because center k-space is sampled repeatedly, steady-state saturation dominates contrast during gridding and reconstruction. Ten complete Z-spectra were acquired in healthy mice using both ECG and respiratory-gated, and ungated methods. Z-spectra were also acquired at multiple saturation B1 values to optimize for amide and creatine contrasts. Results: There was no significant difference between CEST contrasts (amide, creatine, MT) calculated from images acquired using ECG and respiratory-gated and ungated methods (p = 0.27, 0.11, 0.47). A saturation power of 1.8$μ$T provides optimal contrast amplitudes for both amide and total creatine contrast without significantly complicating CEST contrast quantification due to water direct saturation, magnetization transfer, and RF spillover between amide and creatine pools. Further, variability in CEST contrast measurements was significantly reduced using the ungated radial FLASH acquisition (p = 0.002, 0.006 for amide and creatine respectively).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a preprint, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free