Cerebrovascular reactivity measurements using 3T BOLD MRI and a fixed inhaled CO2 gas challenge: Repeatability and impact of processing strategy

Introduction: Cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) measurements using blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are commonly used to assess the health of cerebral blood vessels, including in patients with cerebrovascular diseases; however, evidence and consensus regarding reliability and optimal processing are lacking. We aimed to assess the repeatability, accuracy and precision of voxel- and region-based CVR measurements at 3 T using a fixed inhaled (FI) CO2 stimulus in a healthy cohort.Methods: We simulated the effect of noise, delay constraints and voxel- versus region-based analysis on CVR parameters. Results were verified in 15 healthy volunteers (28.1±5.5 years, female: 53%) with a test-retest MRI experiment consisting of two CVR scans. CVR magnitude and delay in grey matter (GM) and white matter were computed for both analyses assuming a linear relationship between the BOLD signal and time-shifted end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) profile.Results: Test-retest repeatability was high [mean (95% CI) inter-scan difference: −0.01 (−0.03, −0.00) %/mmHg for GM CVR magnitude; −0.3 (−1.2,0.6) s for GM CVR delay], but we detected a small systematic reduction in CVR magnitude at scan 2 versus scan 1, accompanied by a greater EtCO2 change [±1.0 (0.4,1.5) mmHg] and lower heart rate [−5.5 (−8.6,−2.4] bpm]. CVR magnitude estimates were higher for voxel- versus region-based analysis [difference in GM: ±0.02 (0.01,0.03) %/mmHg]. Findings were supported by simulation results, predicting a positive bias for voxel-based CVR estimates dependent on temporal contrast-to-noise ratio and delay fitting constraints and an underestimation for region-based CVR estimates.Discussion: BOLD CVR measurements using FI stimulus have good within-day repeatability in healthy volunteers. However, measurements may be influenced by physiological effects and the analysis protocol. Voxel-based analyses should be undertaken with care due to potential for systematic bias; region-based analyses are more reliable in such cases

Assessment of blood-brain barrier disruption using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. A systematic review

AbstractThere is increasing recognition of the importance of blood–brain barrier (BBB) disruption in aging, dementia, stroke and multiple sclerosis in addition to more commonly-studied pathologies such as tumors. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) is a method for studying BBB disruption in vivo. We review pathologies studied, scanning protocols and data analysis procedures to determine the range of available methods and their suitability to different pathologies. We systematically review the existing literature up to February 2014, seeking studies that assessed BBB integrity using T1-weighted DCE-MRI techniques in animals and humans in normal or abnormal brain tissues. The literature search provided 70 studies that were eligible for inclusion, involving 417 animals and 1564 human subjects in total. The pathologies most studied are intracranial neoplasms and acute ischemic strokes. There are large variations in the type of DCE-MRI sequence, the imaging protocols and the contrast agents used. Moreover, studies use a variety of different methods for data analysis, mainly based on model-free measurements and on the Patlak and Tofts models. Consequently, estimated KTrans values varied widely. In conclusion, DCE-MRI is shown to provide valuable information in a large variety of applications, ranging from common applications, such as grading of primary brain tumors, to more recent applications, such as assessment of subtle BBB dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease. Further research is required in order to establish consensus-based recommendations for data acquisition and analysis and, hence, improve inter-study comparability and promote wider use of DCE-MRI

Tracer kinetic assessment of blood–brain barrier leakage and blood volume in cerebral small vessel disease: Associations with disease burden and vascular risk factors

Funding Information: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: Wellcome Trust [grant number WT088134/Z/09/A ; SDJM, FC]; Row Fogo Charitable Trust (MCVH, FC, AKH, PAA); Scottish Funding Council Scottish Imaging Network A Platform for Scientific Excellence collaboration (JMW); NHS Lothian R + D Department (MJT); the UK Dementia Research Institute which receives its funding from DRI Ltd, funded by the UK MRC, Alzheimer’s Research UK and the Alzheimer’s Society (MS, FC, ES, JMW); the Fondation Leducq Transatlantic Network of Excellence for the Study of Perivascular Spaces in Small Vessel Disease [reference number 16 CVD 05] (MS); and European Union Horizon 2020 [project number 666881, SVDs@Target] (MS, FC). We acknowledge the participants, their relatives, and carers for their participation in this study, and the staff of NHS Lothian Stroke Services and Brain Research Imaging Centre Edinburgh for their assistance in recruiting and assessing the patients.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Quantifying blood-brain barrier leakage in small vessel disease: Review and consensus recommendations

Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) comprises pathological processes of the small vessels in the brain that may manifest clinically as stroke, cognitive impairment, dementia, or gait disturbance. It is generally accepted that endothelial dysfunction, including blood-brain barrier (BBB) failure, is pivotal in the pathophysiology. Recent years have seen increasing use of imaging, primarily dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, to assess BBB leakage, but there is considerable variability in the approaches and findings reported in the literature. Although dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging is well established, challenges emerge in cSVD because of the subtle nature of BBB impairment. The purpose of this work, authored by members of the HARNESS Initiative, is to provide an in-depth review and position statement on magnetic resonance imaging measurement of subtle BBB leakage in clinical research studies, with aspects requiring further research identified. We further aim to provide information and consensus recommendations for new investigators wishing to study BBB failure in cSVD and dementia. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)